joether
Posts: 5195
Joined: 7/24/2005
Status: offline
|
Hey BamaD....
You and I, like others on here, are pretty....passionate...when we debate stuff. That we can and do get carried away at times. We all throw jabs at one another. But this post of yours comes across as both threatening and maddening. You can be a reasonable person on this topic, and, you can let that passionate get the best of you. That's up to you. If I've gotten on your nerves or upset you, I apologize. This medium.....sucks....in knowing when someone is upset or just being really passionate. I like to think we can be adults and accept we will have differing opinions. That we can find a middle ground for most things and debate the finer points of that which remains.
What follows below, is my attempt to reign in the passion, and talk in a calm manner. Hopefully, you can follow suit. And we could have a very interesting discussion.
quote:
ORIGINAL: BamaD
You don't consider writing laws where the government in their limitless wisdom decides the ages at which gun safety can be taught to be sweeping.
Most students are taught to drive at the age of 16-18. Why? Because most of them obtain their learner's permit and later their actual driver's license. How many of them have learned to drive at an earlier age? If someone were to 'obey' the rules in the latest 'Grand Theft Auto' could navigate the virtual city without attracting the police. When I played 'L.A. Noir' I obeyed the 'rules of the road' in the 1947's version of Los Angeles. The only time I "broke the law" was after running a red light and nothing bad happening in the game. In 'L.A. Noir' you play the role of a police detective. There exist an abundance of games for safe driving. You can even use a steering wheel and standard shifting if you want.
Parents will even teach their kids how to drive as a time honored tradition. Does the government get involved with that? They do if the child is not of the right age to logically and reasonably be driving, even with the parent riding 'shotgun'.
Your stating stuff that makes no rational sense...given...the evidence we have right now.
quote:
ORIGINAL: BamaD
Your assessment of my "fears" is just one more example of your answering the statements you want to refute rather than what I say.
Objectively (if you can), look at your posts. Ask yourself if your doing the exact thing you are accusing me of?
quote:
ORIGINAL: BamaD
This started with you guys wanting to ban teaching anyone under 20 gun safety then you moved it down to 14. Now you claim you only want 14, full auto.
What the hell does...THIS...have to do with the topic?
quote:
ORIGINAL: BamaD
Clearly you want to prohibit teaching gun safety till you have had time for your anti gun propaganda to get to them.
Again, what does...THIS....have to do with the topic?
Where do I even bring up the notion of prohibiting teaching gun safety at all? Show me the post.
Anti gun propaganda? ...Really? Because I asked a bunch of reasonable questions? Which of the following are unreasonable questions to ask given that article:
A ) How did the women known she might be in danger?
B ) Why was she carrying a firearm?
C ) Have the suspects been found?
Is it 'anti gun propaganda' to ask reasonable and rational questions? Or accept what one is told without question or hesitation, regardless of just how insane the information is?
quote:
ORIGINAL: BamaD
Then you first pretend that wanting certification adjustments rather than bans means that I like the idea of 10 year olds running loose with uzis
Your making an accusation to which you have...NO EVIDENCE...to support. The certification will be updated, to deal with 'the idiots' with firearms problem. And who will be pushing for it the most? The Insurance companies.
I would like to think, you agree with me, that children should not have access to full automatic weapons of any type. I thought we had reached the ever elusive 'middle ground' in saying: A ) children should not have uzis, and , B ) The certification should be updated to reflect history.
quote:
ORIGINAL: BamaD
Second you tell me, as if I didn't know that this would involve a law.
No, I said it would involve updating the existing law(s). I also stated I assumed each state had such a certification process. That state this tragedy took place, would update the law(s) surrounding the certification process (whatever form that takes).
You have stated in the past (and please, by all means, correct me if I'm wrong here), that you dislike useless firearm laws. That we should not create new firearm laws. Well....I'm agreeing with you here. That this hopefully, doesn't require a whole new law but rather passing a law that is effectively an update to one or more existing laws to handle the problem.
quote:
ORIGINAL: BamaD
Third when I let you know that I was well aware of this, it being as obscure as the sun coming up tomorrow, you pretend to show your (only self perceived) superiority by stating (again the obvious) that it may only mean a change to the law and not a whole new law.
Sue me for being optimistic....
Let us hope a whole new law does not have to be created because of one Darwin Award winner.
quote:
ORIGINAL: BamaD
Nothing sneaky about it, it is like Obama declaring the DC gun ban to be a "compromise".
Again...'This is not on topic'......
As it concerns the issue of 'Heller vs. DC', the US Supreme Court did two things wrong. The first is an 'end run around' the 2nd amendment, which they are NOT allowed to do on...any...of the amendments. Only Congress (and under specific circumstances) can change the wording or spirit of an amendment. The second is the lower courts got it right. The firearm in question was not part of Mr. Heller's duties as a police officer, hence, the firearm would not be protected under the 2nd amendment. Why? The firearm was not part of his duties with "A well regulated militia...", but for personal protection. Should he have a right to personal protection? Yes. And the proper way to achieve that is through the 1st amendment. Build up like minded individuals whom present a good, solid, and reasonable case to allow personal ownership of one or more firearms within the District of Columbia's footprint (most likely minus the federal areas).
From an objective stance, there is no way that ruling was constitutional, but political. Can you be objective in your reasoning?
quote:
ORIGINAL: BamaD
You really think pro gun conservatives are stupid enough that they will believe it just because you use reasonable words to describe what you want.
Another 'Not on Topic' argument....
I think conservatives that like firearms will find I'm not in favor of banning firearms. That after a lengthy discussion (many with burgers and something good to drink), they'd find I could rattle off dozens of circumstances in which a firearm could aid in protection the wielder and/or those around them from hostile forces. That we as a society got to start facing the unpleasant aspects of this amendment like adults rather than children. That we realize (like as I started) that we are a passionate people; and that passion can and does get out of control. Its up to each of us to maintain that self control, right? A 'Liberal' does not mean 'automatically opposite to conservatives'. Look up the definition of both words some time.
This nation has 'forgotten' what it means to reach a compromise. We do it every day and in most facets, yet, on topics facing the nation, we are hopelessly deadlocked.
quote:
ORIGINAL: BamaD
You have made very clear that your goal is the elimination of the right to bear arms and to make it a privilege granted by government which no "reasonable" person would ever worry about being lost.
...'Not On Topic'....
Without a US Constitution, does the 2nd amendment exist? What was created when a bunch of dudes voting to have a piece of paper made 'the law of the land' back in the late 18th century in America? And the ten amendments that was attached to it? To establish a government different to most others at the time. Before that document was signed, who in America had a 2nd amendment right?
You are pushing bullshit here. My goal is not the elimination of the 2nd amendment. I've pointed out that the corrupting of it serves this nation no good. I used the 8th amendment as an example. Not one person on here....liberal....moderate...nor...conservative, were in favor of ignoring the first half of that amendment and reinterpreting the remainder. Nor doing that for the other twenty-five amendments. So why would it be allowed for the 2nd? How many issues of the 3rd and 7th amendment come up? Neither of them have an industry that stands to lose or profit by changes of viewpoint or wording of the amendment. Is it really that hard to understand this industry's motivations as it relates to the 2nd amendment? I advocated defining the 2nd similar to former Justice Stevens, while adding another amendment that explains the idea that self defense is a liberty worth protecting. At the time and even now, I will admit I have no clear or solid idea(s) on how exactly the wording or spirit of the law would apply. I figured (wrongly at the time it seems), that you and others would jump at the idea of crafting something useful. Would it become law? Probably not. But I would think/hope it would be deeply interesting, educating, and maybe enlightening. Nobody, including you, took me up on the idea. I was the one coming forward to this 'middle ground'. All you and/or others had to do, was meet half way. You could not. Why?
I answered your questions and comments. Including the ones not on topic. Now I expect the same in kind.....
|
RE: Four more pointless deaths - .gif){kind=avatar}
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread