quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

quote:

You brought up cancer trying to score cheap point not my fault it was such an easy block.
I turned your point back on you be a man and admit it

I brought up cancer--which, not surprisingly, is on my mind a lot these days--as a handy example of the difference between correlation and causality.

You turned it a whine about gun regulation, as if background checks and permits inflicted suffering any akin to the horrors lining an oncology patient's path. To those of us battling cancer, your cheap appropriation of our travails is unspeakably offensive.

If you honestly lack the wit or conscience to grasp this, there's no point in trying to explain further.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
I am sorry to hear that you have cancer, I had no way of knowing this. That explains your obvious sensitivity.
I am sorry about the discomfort this conversation has caused you.

quote:

I am sorry to hear that you have cancer, I had no way of knowing this. That explains your obvious sensitivity.
I am sorry about the discomfort this conversation has caused you.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
I am sorry to hear that you have cancer, I had no way of knowing this. That explains your obvious sensitivity.
I am sorry about the discomfort this conversation has caused you.

There is an ongoing thread over in off-topic, where DC has been sharing his battle with the illness and it's been referenced in odd places around the board for some months now, Bama. Your claim of ignorance rings a bit forced and hollow.

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

quote:

I am sorry to hear that you have cancer, I had no way of knowing this. That explains your obvious sensitivity.
I am sorry about the discomfort this conversation has caused you.

Thanks, Bama! And I apologize for overreacting. Today brought a big surgery consult, so I was unusually edgy. I should have known better than to wade into P&R. All best wishes!

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

quote:

I am sorry to hear that you have cancer, I had no way of knowing this. That explains your obvious sensitivity.
I am sorry about the discomfort this conversation has caused you.

Thanks, Bama! And I apologize for overreacting. Today brought a big surgery consult, so I was unusually edgy. I should have known better than to wade into P&R. All best wishes!

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

Hey jackass.com....... How ironic.

The idea that if people carried concealed weapons, Chicago`s violence would dissapear is laughable.

Disappear? Yeah. But that is just a bullshit strawman statement, Polite. The way to get gang type shitheads to stop shooting each other is to cut off the flow off drug money that buys their bullets.

Now, if we are talking about initiating a cultural sea change in the city, where joe paycheck running to the store must be seen as a potential threat to a would-be mugger, instead of an easy target, where kicking in the door of the old lady who cashes her SS check and keeps money in the house might mean being a nice target in the front hall, then hell yes, the sooner they start allowing the law-abiding to carry tools of self-defense, the sooner the criminals get nervous.

I don't know where the dumbass, "arm everybody" shit comes from either. Fucking morons, afraid of having their precious idiotic notions challenged in any way, I suppose. Freedom to carry is just that. Freedom. Some will, most won't. It works because the bad guys don't know. That uncertainty becomes a powerful deterrent to crime against innocents. I've shared the story previously of a murderer being flushed from his hiding place and right into police custody by an old woman with a broom, who thought a stray dog was chasing cats in her garage, while the killer hiding there thought the woman shouting and waving something long and black was coming for him with a shotgun.

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

FR

Thanks, everyone, for the kind words and wishes, and apologies again for letting my medical stuff cloud my posting judgment.

Circling back to the topic, I actually agree with the heart of the point I think Bama was making, which is that a free society needs to be endlessly vigilant about the potential erosion of its people's liberties. The tricky part comes, imho, when one needs to distinguish when reasonable and socially beneficial boundaries on the exercise of a given right (e.g., copyright and libel laws) cross the line into menacing the right itself (e.g., the Sedition Act of 1918, which was used to imprison folks simply for disagreeing with the government).

Where that line falls vis-a-vis the Second Amendment I'm still pondering. Thoughts, anyone?

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

FR

Thanks, everyone, for the kind words and wishes, and apologies again for letting my medical stuff cloud my posting judgment.

Circling back to the topic, I actually agree with the heart of the point I think Bama was making, which is that a free society needs to be endlessly vigilant about the potential erosion of its people's liberties. The tricky part comes, imho, when one needs to distinguish when reasonable and socially beneficial boundaries on the exercise of a given right (e.g., copyright and libel laws) cross the line into menacing the right itself (e.g., the Sedition Act of 1918, which was used to imprison folks simply for disagreeing with the government).

Where that line falls vis-a-vis the Second Amendment I'm still pondering. Thoughts, anyone?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

It doesnt work as well as not having guns though, does it.

quote:

I do not see this as merely a 2nd amendment issue although I realize that do to the focus of the thread most attention will naturally go to the 2nd

quote:

I also saw in the news today that a Florida fundy asshat was arrested, lest he exercise his rights under the 1st.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

quote:

Chicago has unfortunately a number of people being killed and injured by firearms in a given month. An it is noted the city has some of the strictest gun laws on the books.

This raises the classic question of correlation vs. causation.

People who are undergoing chemotherapy are far more likely to have cancer than those who are not. Does that mean chemo causes cancer?

People who have cancer are more likely to have chemo than those who don't
taking away peoples rights is the cancer

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

I'm not finding any good media coverage of how it panned out, but I'm seeing Facebok stuff that a significant number of bikers rolled into DC (the city, not the poster [;)]), regardless of the fact that they had been denied a permit for their event.

Anybody know how that went? The LA Times says, "thousands," but I'm seeing claims that estimate was shy a couple of zeroes.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwynn

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

quote:

Chicago has unfortunately a number of people being killed and injured by firearms in a given month. An it is noted the city has some of the strictest gun laws on the books.

This raises the classic question of correlation vs. causation.

People who are undergoing chemotherapy are far more likely to have cancer than those who are not. Does that mean chemo causes cancer?

People who have cancer are more likely to have chemo than those who don't
taking away peoples rights is the cancer

After all the CC laws and the ever more intrusion of that into every arena in public; to public parks, to national forests, to a bar, on the bus or rail transport, etc., has clearly taken away people's right to go anywhere outside of their house with out fear of being among a crowd of people toting guns in their presence at all times.

But then any feeling of safety, security, and proactive protection from this sort never seems to enter the discussion when it comes to 'freedom.'

Indeed, taking away people's right to be able to step out of their homes with out instantly having to confront this madness foisted upon them and their children is the cancer.