RE: California's newest gun law comes with an admission

RE: California's newest gun law comes with an admission (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

PeonForHer -> RE: California's newest gun law comes with an admission (10/2/2014 11:56:48 AM)
quote: nutsuckours That's the UK English spelling of 'nutsucker'? Whatever. Made me chortle. Just saying. [;)]

mnottertail -> RE: California's newest gun law comes with an admission (10/2/2014 12:02:59 PM)
I took an English test on Facebook, passed, knowing the difference between a bonnet and a boot among other things. And it has to be nutsuckours, you have a labour party, oi?

BamaD -> RE: California's newest gun law comes with an admission (10/2/2014 12:03:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer quote: I don't know what this has to do with the subject but it looks like polite brought it up. It was TH, post 26. Actually I was talking about big brother censoring people who might be extreme.

mnottertail -> RE: California's newest gun law comes with an admission (10/2/2014 12:13:22 PM)
To no avail, and not in that post.

Politesub53 -> RE: California's newest gun law comes with an admission (10/2/2014 4:58:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic I saw a headline, without the time to read the story, and was looking for further details. Got any? Its your drivel buddy, you find the story you were on about. Still, it is nice of you to admit you post without checking facts.

Politesub53 -> RE: California's newest gun law comes with an admission (10/2/2014 5:03:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer It's an integral part of the British Tory Party proposals on gun law in California. I don't know what this has to do with the subject but it looks like polite brought it up. You cant even read Bama. Not very clever some someone who claims to have worked in the intelligence services or the for the police. Nice of you to try and blame me while "claiming" to have me on hide.

TheHeretic -> RE: California's newest gun law comes with an admission (10/2/2014 8:48:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic I saw a headline, without the time to read the story, and was looking for further details. Got any? Its your drivel buddy, you find the story you were on about. Still, it is nice of you to admit you post without checking facts. I asked a question, Polite. You were given an opportunity to demonstrate good character in your answer, and haven't surprised anyone by not doing that. So, now that I have had an opportunity to look it up, and read a couple different accounts, I'm as appalled as when I as dealing with an unconfirmed snip. It was very easy to find. I just typed "UK censorship" into the box on Google News, and made sure the dates matched the current proposal. There seems to be a long history. Prior restraint on unpopular opinion. You have fun with that. You and Peon don't like an armed populace, and I do. I treasure free speech, and you don't. It just illustrates that once a people start being lulled into enthusiastically surrendering their rights, they seem to keep doing it.

Kirata -> RE: California's newest gun law comes with an admission (10/2/2014 9:25:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic once a people start being lulled into enthusiastically surrendering their rights, they seem to keep doing it. Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves. ~William Pitt K.

joether -> RE: California's newest gun law comes with an admission (10/3/2014 5:45:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic once a people start being lulled into enthusiastically surrendering their rights, they seem to keep doing it. Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves. ~William Pitt 200+ years is a long time. While both ideas are interesting and some ways, a bit of wisdom to them. They are also part of their time and culture. The 'rights' of the individual are very different in 2014 than the late 18th century. Some are from the 18th century. But others are from the 19th and 20th centuries. Many times those are not even within the US Constitution or its Amendment's section. Does one have a right to a neutral net? To obtain safe and clean drinking water? To earn a day's wage that does not keep them in perpetual welfare for the rest of their lives? Financial debts that can not be removed? Or limited in travel from one state to another because one's skin is not white? These are questions that would not have come up in the 18th century for obvious reasons. So how do we use these 'rights' to handle the problems of today? Do you have a right to see a family member living in another state? According to the US Constitution, 'No', you don't. I'm sure you could find some abstract way of stating a quote from Jefferson or Madison to attack and undermine the questions. Yet, its like those that use the Holy Bible to answer today's big questions. Because everyone knows the internet existed back in 1 AD, right? An of course....no one....would....ever....use the Holy Bible to push their viewpoint on a concept, right? Just as people using quotes from the founding fathers out of context or not within the frame of the conversation being discussed. Would Jefferson be for eliminating student loan debt? Or keeping it in place? Or any of the founding fathers? Should we care, given they are quite dead? That they implied the US Constitution to be 'A Living Document' and not one 'Set In Stone'? That future generations would best know how to handle the problems of future times? That while their words give reflection on possible ways to handle problems, they are not mean to be taken like Bible verses to a Fundamentalist Christian. A concept not heard about in the founding father's lives was the idea of 'exceptions' to the amendments. That the rights of the individual, like that of the government, have an upper limit. That no one has a total freedom that trumps common sense, education, and/or wisdom. They thought the removal of rights would signal tyrannical forces taking hold. Yet, could tyrannical forces take hold without diminishing or touching any of the amendments? Back in the 18th century, I think they might have assumed that to be impossible. In 2014? Its a bit more.....complicated.....

joether -> RE: California's newest gun law comes with an admission (10/3/2014 6:02:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD 'Gunphobia'? The word your looking for is Hoplophobia (an fear of weapons). Technically, its not an actual phobia. Since the gunaphobic does not seem to fear other weapons Hoplophobia doesn't fit (how many times have you seen people tell us how much better it is to get stabbed than to fight back. You ....DO....understand that firearms are a form of weapon? Right? So Hoplophobia would be a more correct way of explaining it. And as noted in the description, Hoplophobia is not an actual phobia as defined by the Diagnostics and Statistical Manual used by the American Psychologist Association and many others. I don't hear to many gun nuts say they would like bullets in their body instead of knife wounds. Death is death. You assume you would never be in a situation in which the enemy gets the drop on you. That you'll be Chuck Norris, all of Saturday Morning Cartoons, Master Chief, Rambo, and Judge Dredd rolled into one (or just an Adeptus Astartes.....). You might want to get that delusional view point checked with a mental/emotional health professional! Of course everyone fights back. The question is, 'what do you call someone moments before a crime is committed with a firearm for the first time against someone else?' An....'Honest an Law-Abiding Citizen'! Didn't work out for Michael Dunn or Adam Lanza. That even with people armed, mass shooting will STILL take place (i.e. Gabby Giffords). We can sit here and talk all day and all night on the points. At the end of each day, what have we accomplished? Have we reduced crime? Have we reduced the frequency of mass shootings? Have we made the streets safer? Kept our rights? A society will come to a viewpoint and have to deal with the positive and negative consequences of that viewpoint. The question then becomes: Can that viewpoint change? More so...should we?

joether -> RE: California's newest gun law comes with an admission (10/3/2014 6:19:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic quote: ORIGINAL: joether Still....anyone here wish to argue that allowing the mentally/emotionally compromised to have easy access to firearms is a good thing? Where the fuck did you possibly come up with that interpretation, Joether??? Or are you just trying to invent a topic where you might feel yourself competent to offer anything? There are two subjects raised in my original post for the thread. A law that may empower families of the mentally ill, and a (probably accidental) admission that a database of gun owners has been created in California, from information recorded at the time of the sale. Given what you posted, my viewpoint remains the same as a valid question. Do we allow firearm owners to keep their arms, given what we know of mental/emotional problems? Half the people with Depression will die from it. That those with a firearm are 90% likely to be successful were as all other forms are in the teens. If we could cut down the number of people using firearms to kill themselves, get them treatment, and hopefully....find a way to cure this illness, give their arms back. Would that not be a good course to follow? quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic My contention is that when supporters of the 2nd Amendment raise the concern that background checks can be used to create a database of gun owners, they are commonly mocked as conspiracy nuts by people whose ignorance about firearms is only exceeded by their negative opinion of guns and gun owners in general. An you don't think the US Government doesn't have this information already? Never heard of the National Security Agency (NSA)? If California or some other state wishes to have such a database, it is allowable under the US Constitution. Its called the 10th amendment. Don't bitch at me about it. I didn't write it or vote on it back in the 18th century. That gun owners and gun nuts (and possibly concern citizens) are alarmed that this database might exist can be understandable. They believe they have a 4th amendment right. An argument could be made here. What form that takes, I couldn't tell you. So how do we balance the needs of the individual to the needs of society as a whole? A difficult question for anyone to answer. That each amendment does have limits, is known to us could provide us some way in answering the question. I have in the past made a distinction of 'those within the firearm debate' to four groups of individuals (gun nuts, gun owners, concern citizens, and gun controllers). And there are many concern citizens that own and operate firearms, but not for the reasons or viewpoints of say, gun nuts. I've cast sweeping brushes onto groups of people in the past (and of us that have been on the forum have done it), so I'm not blaming you here on your viewpoint. I'm asking if its possible to accept there are more than just two sides to this debate?

joether -> RE: California's newest gun law comes with an admission (10/3/2014 6:29:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: joether anyone here wish to argue that allowing the mentally/emotionally compromised to have easy access to firearms is a good thing? Sure. Are their lives worth less than yours? Why should they be denied the right to an effective means of self-defense? The issue is whether the person is predictably homicidal or a danger to themselves, and we have no reliable way of determining that absent expressed intent or a history of violent or suicidal behavior. Here's a book for you to get: "Talking to Depression" by Claudia Strauss. Read it from cover to cover. Then try to examine what you stated here with the knowledge gained from the book. I think you will find what you wrote here was wrong in many ways.

mnottertail -> RE: California's newest gun law comes with an admission (10/3/2014 7:09:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic once a people start being lulled into enthusiastically surrendering their rights, they seem to keep doing it. Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves. ~William Pitt K. William Pitt said that when William Wilberforce and him were actually freeing slaves in England. Let's not let this serve some other meaning, several things not contemplated in that statement is your freedom defined as owning fur lined sinks, or to be excused from the census, and many more....let it do only the work it was designed to do. And consider what was said....its equivalent is: The law in its majestic equality forbids the rich as well as the poor.....blah blah blah yadda yadda yadda, and so on, and so forth.

BamaD -> RE: California's newest gun law comes with an admission (10/3/2014 10:43:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD 'Gunphobia'? The word your looking for is Hoplophobia (an fear of weapons). Technically, its not an actual phobia. Since the gunaphobic does not seem to fear other weapons Hoplophobia doesn't fit (how many times have you seen people tell us how much better it is to get stabbed than to fight back. You ....DO....understand that firearms are a form of weapon? Right? So Hoplophobia would be a more correct way of explaining it. And as noted in the description, Hoplophobia is not an actual phobia as defined by the Diagnostics and Statistical Manual used by the American Psychologist Association and many others. I don't hear to many gun nuts say they would like bullets in their body instead of knife wounds. Death is death. You assume you would never be in a situation in which the enemy gets the drop on you. That you'll be Chuck Norris, all of Saturday Morning Cartoons, Master Chief, Rambo, and Judge Dredd rolled into one (or just an Adeptus Astartes.....). You might want to get that delusional view point checked with a mental/emotional health professional! Of course everyone fights back. The question is, 'what do you call someone moments before a crime is committed with a firearm for the first time against someone else?' An....'Honest an Law-Abiding Citizen'! Didn't work out for Michael Dunn or Adam Lanza. That even with people armed, mass shooting will STILL take place (i.e. Gabby Giffords). We can sit here and talk all day and all night on the points. At the end of each day, what have we accomplished? Have we reduced crime? Have we reduced the frequency of mass shootings? Have we made the streets safer? Kept our rights? A society will come to a viewpoint and have to deal with the positive and negative consequences of that viewpoint. The question then becomes: Can that viewpoint change? More so...should we? Don't talk to me like I am an idiot. When people pretend that allowing criminals the advantage (while being too stupid to realize it) by reducing everyone to knives their phobia is not of all weapons but to guns, and guns alone. Get back to me after you give the nutsacker lecture.

Kirata -> RE: California's newest gun law comes with an admission (10/3/2014 11:01:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: joether anyone here wish to argue that allowing the mentally/emotionally compromised to have easy access to firearms is a good thing? Sure. Are their lives worth less than yours? Why should they be denied the right to an effective means of self-defense? The issue is whether the person is predictably homicidal or a danger to themselves, and we have no reliable way of determining that absent expressed intent or a history of violent or suicidal behavior. I think you will find what you wrote here was wrong in many ways. Let me know when you have something substantive to post that addresses what I said. K.

Kirata -> RE: California's newest gun law comes with an admission (10/3/2014 11:09:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail Let's not let this serve some other meaning... let it do only the work it was designed to do. Fair enough, but let's not go in the other direction either. Necessity is and always has been too often an evidence-free argument. K.

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: California's newest gun law comes with an admission (10/3/2014 11:11:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD Don't talk to me like I am an idiot. Then don't make idiotic sweeping statements! [8\|] quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD When people pretend that allowing criminals the advantage (while being too stupid to realize it) by reducing everyone to knives their phobia is not of all weapons but to guns, and guns alone. Where do you get the notion that the criminals would have the advantage?? You make the automatic (and moronic) assumption that all criminals will have guns when everyone else is forced to hand theirs in. I have news for you... in a society where guns are not prolific, guns are not so easy to get hold of. Ergo, the criminals don't have any more guns than anyone else. Pretty much most of our criminals are not armed. But you like to live in your ridiculous bubble with your wrong assumptions and continue to make sweeping statements.

lovmuffin -> RE: California's newest gun law comes with an admission (10/3/2014 11:20:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD Don't talk to me like I am an idiot. Then don't make idiotic sweeping statements! [8\|] quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD When people pretend that allowing criminals the advantage (while being too stupid to realize it) by reducing everyone to knives their phobia is not of all weapons but to guns, and guns alone. Where do you get the notion that the criminals would have the advantage?? You make the automatic (and moronic) assumption that all criminals will have guns when everyone else is forced to hand theirs in. I have news for you... in a society where guns are not prolific, guns are not so easy to get hold of. Ergo, the criminals don't have any more guns than anyone else. Pretty much most of our criminals are not armed. But you like to live in your ridiculous bubble with your wrong assumptions and continue to make sweeping statements. You're making the automatic (and moronic) assumption that every other society, particularly the ones who do things like ya'll in the UK are just like us.

BamaD -> RE: California's newest gun law comes with an admission (10/3/2014 11:52:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic quote: ORIGINAL: joether Still....anyone here wish to argue that allowing the mentally/emotionally compromised to have easy access to firearms is a good thing? Where the fuck did you possibly come up with that interpretation, Joether??? Or are you just trying to invent a topic where you might feel yourself competent to offer anything? There are two subjects raised in my original post for the thread. A law that may empower families of the mentally ill, and a (probably accidental) admission that a database of gun owners has been created in California, from information recorded at the time of the sale. Given what you posted, my viewpoint remains the same as a valid question. Do we allow firearm owners to keep their arms, given what we know of mental/emotional problems? Half the people with Depression will die from it. That those with a firearm are 90% likely to be successful were as all other forms are in the teens. If we could cut down the number of people using firearms to kill themselves, get them treatment, and hopefully....find a way to cure this illness, give their arms back. Would that not be a good course to follow? quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic My contention is that when supporters of the 2nd Amendment raise the concern that background checks can be used to create a database of gun owners, they are commonly mocked as conspiracy nuts by people whose ignorance about firearms is only exceeded by their negative opinion of guns and gun owners in general. An you don't think the US Government doesn't have this information already? Never heard of the National Security Agency (NSA)? If California or some other state wishes to have such a database, it is allowable under the US Constitution. Its called the 10th amendment. Don't bitch at me about it. I didn't write it or vote on it back in the 18th century. That gun owners and gun nuts (and possibly concern citizens) are alarmed that this database might exist can be understandable. They believe they have a 4th amendment right. An argument could be made here. What form that takes, I couldn't tell you. So how do we balance the needs of the individual to the needs of society as a whole? A difficult question for anyone to answer. That each amendment does have limits, is known to us could provide us some way in answering the question. I have in the past made a distinction of 'those within the firearm debate' to four groups of individuals (gun nuts, gun owners, concern citizens, and gun controllers). And there are many concern citizens that own and operate firearms, but not for the reasons or viewpoints of say, gun nuts. I've cast sweeping brushes onto groups of people in the past (and of us that have been on the forum have done it), so I'm not blaming you here on your viewpoint. I'm asking if its possible to accept there are more than just two sides to this debate? I clearly stated that the intent was good. Quit pretending that opposing A the method and B the dishonesty revealed by this law = C opposing the objective A search warrant would be better though. With this law you could have a ton of fertilizer and they wouldn't touch it with a search warrant when they find your writings that you intend to carve up your roommates and anyone else you can lure in they can do something, with this law they wouldn't even know. That isn't a fantasy that was the situation in Santa Barbara. BTW gunaphobic is a political term that I use, not intended to be a medical term.

BamaD -> RE: California's newest gun law comes with an admission (10/3/2014 11:55:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD Don't talk to me like I am an idiot. Then don't make idiotic sweeping statements! [8\|] quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD When people pretend that allowing criminals the advantage (while being too stupid to realize it) by reducing everyone to knives their phobia is not of all weapons but to guns, and guns alone. Where do you get the notion that the criminals would have the advantage?? You make the automatic (and moronic) assumption that all criminals will have guns when everyone else is forced to hand theirs in. I have news for you... in a society where guns are not prolific, guns are not so easy to get hold of. Ergo, the criminals don't have any more guns than anyone else. Pretty much most of our criminals are not armed. But you like to live in your ridiculous bubble with your wrong assumptions and continue to make sweeping statements. Idiot I make the assumption that you can't comprehend, that a 20 year old with a knife has a huge edge over a 60 year old with a knife. See you are one of the people who are too stupid to see that.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625