Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
The Gun Thread
Author Message
tanqtonic Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 19,079
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 775
I Root For: rice
Location:
Post: #341
RE: The Gun Thread
It will be interesting to see the tap dance defending public accommodation laws based on an activity or buyer one likes versus public accommodation laws when projected on activities or buyers one doesnt.

I cant wait to see the Oregon 20 year old rip the **** out of Dick's and WalMart based on public accommodation and/or age discrimination concepts.

Using the exact statute as the link below. Brilliant. Rules for Radicals #4.

https://thinkprogress.org/oregon-baker-a...4bfabbc77/
03-06-2018 04:41 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Hambone10 Offline
Hooter
*

Posts: 40,235
Joined: Nov 2005
Reputation: 1275
I Root For: My Kids
Location: Right Down th Middle

New Orleans BowlDonatorsThe Parliament Awards
Post: #342
RE: The Gun Thread
(03-06-2018 11:07 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  As most of you probably know, I have supported some kind of a gun license, similar to a driver's license, that you'd need to buy or possess guns or ammo, and that would be tied to the criminal database, so that running the card through a reader, or calling a toll-free number, would serve as an immediate background check.

I could see this working like a driver's license, at some age you get a learner's permit, and at some later age you get a full license, with endorsements available for things like CCL, open carry, and particular weapons like semi-automatics. Say at about 14 you could have a learner's permit that let you have a gun when hunting or at a range, accompanied by an adult. At some later age you get a full license for basic weapons, then you could augment with additional training and qualifications to move up to more powerful and sophisticated stuff.

Some gun owners say this is tantamount to gun registration. A lot of those gun owners already have CCLs or something similar, so they are already on the list.

This is one thing that has actually accomplished about a 20% reduction in gun violence in some places where it has been implemented. That's a better record than most of the stuff the left is peddling. And I think it's time for those of us who feel that without the 2nd Amendment, the rest are worthless, to step up with some ideas.

One other thought I have is that I wonder why the NRA isn't onboard with this. There is a ton of money to be made with all the certification training, and guess who is in primo postion to pull down some major bucks.

Since they're on board with education anyway, they should be... other than the fact that as a constitutional right, it should be cheap/free

Conceptually I see the point, but I'm not sure it's 'the right's' job to negotiate with the Constitution. Get 40+ votes from the left and I think you'll find enough from the right to make it happen. I understand that's not how things SHOULD work, but it is closer to how they DO work

This should be a constitutional amendment. Get D states to pass it first. They should like the idea that it removes the right from the Constitution, even if only barely. How is it a Constitutional right if you have to pass a test?

(03-06-2018 11:39 AM)JSA Wrote:  I wanted to come back to this.

I see the your point, but it might be more accurate to say mass shootings are still relatively rare events. I think someone shooting 500 people is a BFD.

With regard to the other 30,000+ shootings, maybe the converse of what Stalin supposedly said is true. A mass shooting is a tragedy, a single shooting is a statistic.

Someone shooting 500 people IS a BFD, but not when compared to say 15,000 people shooting 25,000. (not all of them die either)... I'd say having 15,000 shooters out there is a bigger problem/deal than having one... so while I get your point, I don't think it meaningfully detracts from his

(03-06-2018 03:21 PM)JSA Wrote:  My brother told me this story.

The .45 sidearm was apparently a ***** to fire accurately.
So, during target practice for his basic training, he and his friend both fired at my father's target,
and then both fired at his friends. They both barely passed.

It is (from experience). bullet tumbles (so I've been told)
(This post was last modified: 03-06-2018 06:50 PM by Hambone10.)
03-06-2018 06:48 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
tanqtonic Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 19,079
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 775
I Root For: rice
Location:
Post: #343
RE: The Gun Thread
(03-06-2018 06:48 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Someone shooting 500 people IS a BFD, but not when compared to say 15,000 people shooting 25,000. (not all of them die either)... I'd say having 15,000 shooters out there is a bigger problem/deal than having one... so while I get your point, I don't think it meaningfully detracts from his

When you pull out of the 30k shootings stats the 'shooter == victim (intentional)' parameter, the victim count goes down to 10k. The '30k' number is broadly proclaimed by left leaning organizations as 'gun violence victims' without bothering to tell you 2/3 of those are intentional victims by their own hand.
(This post was last modified: 03-06-2018 09:01 PM by tanqtonic.)
03-06-2018 08:59 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Offline
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 80,597
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 3189
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #344
RE: The Gun Thread
03-06-2018 09:26 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
RiceLad15 Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 16,622
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 106
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: H-town
Post: #345
RE: The Gun Thread
(03-06-2018 01:43 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(03-06-2018 12:24 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(03-06-2018 11:15 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(03-06-2018 10:45 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  In this case, the 18 year old who is drafted or joins the military is trained and must be able to show they can competently handle a firearm before they are given one, right?

Never heard of anybody, volunteer or draftee, flunking basic training because they were unable to handle a firearm.

How closely do you follow who tries to join our military?

How closely do I have to follow to make the statement that I have never heard of anybody being dismissed from basic because they were unable to handle a firearm?I haven't. It's a fact.

Do you have some anecdotes or stats that would demonstrate that people get dismissed from basic because they are not good with a gun? I am willing to listen.

My point was not that X number of people fail or pass the training - my point was that the training is required.

I fail to see how your personal anecdote about knowing people who flunked basic training adds to that point.
03-07-2018 01:35 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OptimisticOwl Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 58,500
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation: 854
I Root For: Rice
Location: DFW Metroplex

The Parliament AwardsNew Orleans BowlFootball GeniusCrappiesDonatorsDonators
Post: #346
RE: The Gun Thread
(03-07-2018 01:35 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(03-06-2018 01:43 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(03-06-2018 12:24 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(03-06-2018 11:15 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(03-06-2018 10:45 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  In this case, the 18 year old who is drafted or joins the military is trained and must be able to show they can competently handle a firearm before they are given one, right?

Never heard of anybody, volunteer or draftee, flunking basic training because they were unable to handle a firearm.

How closely do you follow who tries to join our military?

How closely do I have to follow to make the statement that I have never heard of anybody being dismissed from basic because they were unable to handle a firearm?I haven't. It's a fact.

Do you have some anecdotes or stats that would demonstrate that people get dismissed from basic because they are not good with a gun? I am willing to listen.

My point was not that X number of people fail or pass the training - my point was that the training is required.

I fail to see how your personal anecdote about not knowing people who flunked basic training due to a lack of competency with firearms adds to that point.

You forgot the "not".

I was responding to this:

"... must be able to show they can competently handle a firearm before they are given one, right?"

Not necessarily.

My point was, no matter how bad they are with a gun, they are not dismissed on that basis. so that brings in the question of "competently".

(Unless they shoot the instructor, maybe.)

If they had to show competency with firearms to stay in the Army, that would be an easy out for the draftees, right? Just aim to miss, maybe have the gun go off "accidentally", and you are back in civies ASAP.
(This post was last modified: 03-07-2018 01:46 AM by OptimisticOwl.)
03-07-2018 01:42 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
RiceLad15 Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 16,622
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 106
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: H-town
Post: #347
RE: The Gun Thread
(03-07-2018 01:42 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(03-07-2018 01:35 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(03-06-2018 01:43 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(03-06-2018 12:24 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(03-06-2018 11:15 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Never heard of anybody, volunteer or draftee, flunking basic training because they were unable to handle a firearm.

How closely do you follow who tries to join our military?

How closely do I have to follow to make the statement that I have never heard of anybody being dismissed from basic because they were unable to handle a firearm?I haven't. It's a fact.

Do you have some anecdotes or stats that would demonstrate that people get dismissed from basic because they are not good with a gun? I am willing to listen.

My point was not that X number of people fail or pass the training - my point was that the training is required.

I fail to see how your personal anecdote about not knowing people who flunked basic training due to a lack of competency with firearms adds to that point.

You forgot the "not".

I was responding to this:

"... must be able to show they can competently handle a firearm before they are given one, right?"

Not necessarily.

My point was, no matter how bad they are with a gun, they are not dismissed on that basis. so that brings in the question of "competently".

(Unless they shoot the instructor, maybe.)

If they had to show competency with firearms to stay in the Army, that would be an easy out for the draftees, right? Just aim to miss, maybe have the gun go off "accidentally", and you are back in civies ASAP.

Competency isn’t no accuracy. I’d imagine that a cadet who constantly misfires PRM handles a gun dangerously would either be reassigned to a non-combat position or potentially face legal action if deemed intentional, right?

Also, why are we arguing about this? Does the Army not train and properly prepare their recruits how to handle a rifle?
03-07-2018 02:30 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
tanqtonic Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 19,079
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 775
I Root For: rice
Location:
Post: #348
RE: The Gun Thread
Lad -- so you institute a 'basic competency' test for those under age X.

How exactly does this curb mass shootings with a particular firearm?

It is not as though many (if any) mass shooters under 21 showed a basic incompetency that would disallow their actually passing such a test. (To wit, the 21 and under shooters actually showed a decent basic competency with the particular firearms they used; almost by definition if you are 'incompetent' with an semi-auto, you almost have to render it useless through a breech jam, a magazine jam, or other item that renders in inoperable.)

So *if* your goal is to reduce mass shootings with specific targeted means, the concept utterly fails. If the concept is to reduce mass shooting by 'hindering access to firearms in a general sense', how is that concept *not* you actually advocating for a step in a slippery slope?

I mean, if the regulation doesnt affect the issue, then you *must* be advocating for it almost solely on a 'get guns, any guns, no matter how, and no matter the effect, off the street' reasoning.

I mean good lord, if I advocated for an abortion regulation that had *no* specific and direct effect, and was meant solely to to throw a roadblock in general in front of a specific group's, say, teenager's, ability to get an abortion, you better believe that that action would be called (for good reason) a first step in a slippery slope. And, with all due respect, the State of Texas has learned how to do this masterfully.

So from this viewpoint, while you argue against the concept of such a slippery slope being 'realistic', dont you recognize that when you look at it that your proposed regulation would have absolutely no targeted effect; and because it has such a paucity of effect it is somewhat interesting that you seemingly push for such a slippery step, almost by definition, all at the same time arguing for the point that such a slope 'doesnt exist' or is 'unrealistic'.
(This post was last modified: 03-07-2018 03:05 AM by tanqtonic.)
03-07-2018 02:57 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
georgewebb Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 9,575
Joined: Oct 2005
Reputation: 110
I Root For: Rice!
Location:

The Parliament AwardsDonators
Post: #349
RE: The Gun Thread
(03-07-2018 02:57 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I mean good lord, if I advocated for an abortion regulation that had *no* specific and direct effect, and was meant solely to to throw a roadblock in general in front of a specific group's, say, teenager's, ability to get an abortion, you better believe that that action would be called (for good reason) a first step in a slippery slope. And, with all due respect, the State of Texas has learned how to do this masterfully.

The great distinction, of course, is that abortion is part of the Bill of Rights . . .
03-07-2018 08:44 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OptimisticOwl Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 58,500
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation: 854
I Root For: Rice
Location: DFW Metroplex

The Parliament AwardsNew Orleans BowlFootball GeniusCrappiesDonatorsDonators
Post: #350
RE: The Gun Thread
(03-07-2018 02:30 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(03-07-2018 01:42 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(03-07-2018 01:35 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(03-06-2018 01:43 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(03-06-2018 12:24 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  How closely do you follow who tries to join our military?

How closely do I have to follow to make the statement that I have never heard of anybody being dismissed from basic because they were unable to handle a firearm?I haven't. It's a fact.

Do you have some anecdotes or stats that would demonstrate that people get dismissed from basic because they are not good with a gun? I am willing to listen.

My point was not that X number of people fail or pass the training - my point was that the training is required.

I fail to see how your personal anecdote about not knowing people who flunked basic training due to a lack of competency with firearms adds to that point.

You forgot the "not".

I was responding to this:

"... must be able to show they can competently handle a firearm before they are given one, right?"

Not necessarily.

My point was, no matter how bad they are with a gun, they are not dismissed on that basis. so that brings in the question of "competently".

(Unless they shoot the instructor, maybe.)

If they had to show competency with firearms to stay in the Army, that would be an easy out for the draftees, right? Just aim to miss, maybe have the gun go off "accidentally", and you are back in civies ASAP.

Competency isn’t no accuracy. I’d imagine that a cadet who constantly misfires PRM handles a gun dangerously would either be reassigned to a non-combat position or potentially face legal action if deemed intentional, right?

Also, why are we arguing about this? Does the Army not train and properly prepare their recruits how to handle a rifle?

Funny how my relatively innocuous comment that I have never known of anybody dismissed from the military for a lack of competency with firearms has you in such a lather. It seems your new mission is to prove that everybody who is n the military or ever has been is competent to have firearms. OK with me. Go ahead and prove it. But my statement stands. maybe I just have known the wrong people. I knew a guy who was a mechanic, and when drafted, was assigned to a hospital helping deliver babies.

I would hope that the ones who were less competent with guns would end up as noncombatant, but I don't think that is the case. Maybe some of our veterans could chime in on this.

And if the Army is deemed to have well trained all their recruits, then shouldn't that count as passing a competency test for them? Why have to prove themselves all over again as a civilian? If a competency test is mandated, shouldn't an honorable discharge be counted as passing?
03-07-2018 08:50 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OptimisticOwl Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 58,500
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation: 854
I Root For: Rice
Location: DFW Metroplex

The Parliament AwardsNew Orleans BowlFootball GeniusCrappiesDonatorsDonators
Post: #351
RE: The Gun Thread
(03-07-2018 08:44 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  
(03-07-2018 02:57 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I mean good lord, if I advocated for an abortion regulation that had *no* specific and direct effect, and was meant solely to to throw a roadblock in general in front of a specific group's, say, teenager's, ability to get an abortion, you better believe that that action would be called (for good reason) a first step in a slippery slope. And, with all due respect, the State of Texas has learned how to do this masterfully.

The great distinction, of course, is that abortion is part of the Bill of Rights . . .

"The right of the people to kill their children shall not be abridged."
03-07-2018 08:54 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
tanqtonic Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 19,079
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 775
I Root For: rice
Location:
Post: #352
RE: The Gun Thread
(03-07-2018 08:54 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(03-07-2018 08:44 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  
(03-07-2018 02:57 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I mean good lord, if I advocated for an abortion regulation that had *no* specific and direct effect, and was meant solely to to throw a roadblock in general in front of a specific group's, say, teenager's, ability to get an abortion, you better believe that that action would be called (for good reason) a first step in a slippery slope. And, with all due respect, the State of Texas has learned how to do this masterfully.

The great distinction, of course, is that abortion is part of the Bill of Rights . . .

"The right of the people to kill their children shall not be abridged."

How dare you omit the prefactory clause.
03-07-2018 09:26 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
RiceLad15 Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 16,622
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 106
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: H-town
Post: #353
RE: The Gun Thread
(03-07-2018 08:50 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(03-07-2018 02:30 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(03-07-2018 01:42 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(03-07-2018 01:35 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(03-06-2018 01:43 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  How closely do I have to follow to make the statement that I have never heard of anybody being dismissed from basic because they were unable to handle a firearm?I haven't. It's a fact.

Do you have some anecdotes or stats that would demonstrate that people get dismissed from basic because they are not good with a gun? I am willing to listen.

My point was not that X number of people fail or pass the training - my point was that the training is required.

I fail to see how your personal anecdote about not knowing people who flunked basic training due to a lack of competency with firearms adds to that point.

You forgot the "not".

I was responding to this:

"... must be able to show they can competently handle a firearm before they are given one, right?"

Not necessarily.

My point was, no matter how bad they are with a gun, they are not dismissed on that basis. so that brings in the question of "competently".

(Unless they shoot the instructor, maybe.)

If they had to show competency with firearms to stay in the Army, that would be an easy out for the draftees, right? Just aim to miss, maybe have the gun go off "accidentally", and you are back in civies ASAP.

Competency isn’t no accuracy. I’d imagine that a cadet who constantly misfires PRM handles a gun dangerously would either be reassigned to a non-combat position or potentially face legal action if deemed intentional, right?

Also, why are we arguing about this? Does the Army not train and properly prepare their recruits how to handle a rifle?

Funny how my relatively innocuous comment that I have never known of anybody dismissed from the military for a lack of competency with firearms has you in such a lather. It seems your new mission is to prove that everybody who is n the military or ever has been is competent to have firearms. OK with me. Go ahead and prove it. But my statement stands. maybe I just have known the wrong people. I knew a guy who was a mechanic, and when drafted, was assigned to a hospital helping deliver babies.

I would hope that the ones who were less competent with guns would end up as noncombatant, but I don't think that is the case. Maybe some of our veterans could chime in on this.

And if the Army is deemed to have well trained all their recruits, then shouldn't that count as passing a competency test for them? Why have to prove themselves all over again as a civilian? If a competency test is mandated, shouldn't an honorable discharge be counted as passing?

Yes, I am truly worked up into such a lather...
03-07-2018 11:23 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OptimisticOwl Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 58,500
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation: 854
I Root For: Rice
Location: DFW Metroplex

The Parliament AwardsNew Orleans BowlFootball GeniusCrappiesDonatorsDonators
Post: #354
RE: The Gun Thread
(03-07-2018 11:23 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(03-07-2018 08:50 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(03-07-2018 02:30 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(03-07-2018 01:42 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(03-07-2018 01:35 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  My point was not that X number of people fail or pass the training - my point was that the training is required.

I fail to see how your personal anecdote about not knowing people who flunked basic training due to a lack of competency with firearms adds to that point.

You forgot the "not".

I was responding to this:

"... must be able to show they can competently handle a firearm before they are given one, right?"

Not necessarily.

My point was, no matter how bad they are with a gun, they are not dismissed on that basis. so that brings in the question of "competently".

(Unless they shoot the instructor, maybe.)

If they had to show competency with firearms to stay in the Army, that would be an easy out for the draftees, right? Just aim to miss, maybe have the gun go off "accidentally", and you are back in civies ASAP.

Competency isn’t no accuracy. I’d imagine that a cadet who constantly misfires PRM handles a gun dangerously would either be reassigned to a non-combat position or potentially face legal action if deemed intentional, right?

Also, why are we arguing about this? Does the Army not train and properly prepare their recruits how to handle a rifle?

Funny how my relatively innocuous comment that I have never known of anybody dismissed from the military for a lack of competency with firearms has you in such a lather. It seems your new mission is to prove that everybody who is n the military or ever has been is competent to have firearms. OK with me. Go ahead and prove it. But my statement stands. maybe I just have known the wrong people. I knew a guy who was a mechanic, and when drafted, was assigned to a hospital helping deliver babies.

I would hope that the ones who were less competent with guns would end up as noncombatant, but I don't think that is the case. Maybe some of our veterans could chime in on this.

And if the Army is deemed to have well trained all their recruits, then shouldn't that count as passing a competency test for them? Why have to prove themselves all over again as a civilian? If a competency test is mandated, shouldn't an honorable discharge be counted as passing?

Yes, I am truly worked up into such a lather...

Now that you have calmed down, we can go on to other things.
03-07-2018 04:13 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JOwl Offline
sum guy

Posts: 2,694
Joined: Jun 2005
I Root For: Rice
Location: Hell's Kitchen

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #355
RE: The Gun Thread
(03-03-2018 02:15 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Your insinuation that we 'already have and have repeatedly in the past infringed according the plain uninterpreted language' is fundamentally disingenuous. Just pointing that out.
Your claim is false. Just pointing that out.

(03-03-2018 02:15 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Again, per the comment above, not the case. You seemingly add in a unnecessary requirement that the first act need not be highly objectionable in itself. It is not a 'wolf in sheep's clothing' issue, it is the 'one thing leads to another until a bad result is obtained'.

Your statements are contradictory on their face. You summarize the slippery slope as 'one thing leads to another until a bad result is obtained', after previously claiming I was wrong in imposing the condition that the first thing be "unobjectionable or only mildly objectionable". Your formulation clearly includes the same condition: the first thing isn't a "bad result" in and of itself -- but it kicks off a process that continues "until a bad result is obtained".

And a "wolf in sheep's clothing" issue is not what I described. That would be where the immediate item binge discussed appears to be unobjectionable or only mildly objectionable, but is later revealed to be significantly objectionable.

(03-03-2018 02:15 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I guess the common call to 'roll back abortion laws, in spite of the (supposed) Constitutional right' from social conservatives doesnt faze you? That talk seems to set most progressives on an HDD tear about 'assaults on Constitutional' rights', but the same scope of a call (but even more blatant and extreme) that rolls the opposite direction politically you seemingly characterize as a grippy slope. Got it.

Certainly the roll back of abortion laws concerns me. Because of the specific restrictions being imposed.
03-23-2018 06:47 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
tanqtonic Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 19,079
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 775
I Root For: rice
Location:
Post: #356
RE: The Gun Thread
(03-23-2018 06:47 PM)JOwl Wrote:  
(03-03-2018 02:15 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Your insinuation that we 'already have and have repeatedly in the past infringed according the plain uninterpreted language' is fundamentally disingenuous. Just pointing that out.
Your claim is false. Just pointing that out.

Your original quote:
Quote:I find it wholly uncompelling because we've all been standing firmly on the slippery slope for at least my lifetime. Unless you think I should be allowed to amass my own, personal, nuclear arsenal then you support the infringement of my right to keep and bear arms -- just like everyone else in America.

I think my comment is spot on regarding your assertion. Nothing false about. Your entire statement boils down to the term 'arms' includes a 'personal nuclear arsenal', and if one doesnt support your right to bear a 'personal nuclear arsenal' they support an infringement of your right to bear arms.

As an aside on what you are saying in your argument, I truly do suggest that you actually read and digest Heller *prior* to flying off on your 'what is an arm' quixotic argument. It will aid you greatly when you are trying state what an 'arm' is with reference to the 2nd Amendment.

Quote:
(03-03-2018 02:15 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Again, per the comment above, not the case. You seemingly add in a unnecessary requirement that the first act need not be highly objectionable in itself. It is not a 'wolf in sheep's clothing' issue, it is the 'one thing leads to another until a bad result is obtained'.

Your statements are contradictory on their face. You summarize the slippery slope as 'one thing leads to another until a bad result is obtained', after previously claiming I was wrong in imposing the condition that the first thing be "unobjectionable or only mildly objectionable". Your formulation clearly includes the same condition: the first thing isn't a "bad result" in and of itself -- but it kicks off a process that continues "until a bad result is obtained".

And a "wolf in sheep's clothing" issue is not what I described. That would be where the immediate item binge discussed appears to be unobjectionable or only mildly objectionable, but is later revealed to be significantly objectionable.

Your formulation *requires* a first action that is not objectionable or mildly so. I don't. Yours is not a correct formulation. A slippery slope can contain a *bad* thing, followed by *much worse things*. Or, even a *bad* thing followed by one or more *less bad* things. So, in your haste to call my comments contradictory on their face you overlooked a thing or two. You miscategorized my comments as a somehow being subset of what was written. (i.e. series of things, ending up in a very bad position).

Quote:
(03-03-2018 02:15 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I guess the common call to 'roll back abortion laws, in spite of the (supposed) Constitutional right' from social conservatives doesnt faze you? That talk seems to set most progressives on an HDD tear about 'assaults on Constitutional' rights', but the same scope of a call (but even more blatant and extreme) that rolls the opposite direction politically you seemingly characterize as a grippy slope. Got it.

Certainly the roll back of abortion laws concerns me. Because of the specific restrictions being imposed.

I do love people who fly off the tangent and wish to write out of existence explicit, written rights and exhibit umbrage for the made up ****. Just saying.
(This post was last modified: 03-23-2018 11:05 PM by tanqtonic.)
03-23-2018 09:31 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.