bluestarlizzard
Member
so, liko, your saying that we shouldn't care that the public doesn't understand that a gun is a gun and let them make public policy based on an false understanding about the guns in question?
so, liko, your saying that we shouldn't care that the public doesn't understand that a gun is a gun and let them make public policy based on an false understanding about the guns in question?
I love some of the low road, knee-jerk responses in this thread. The man is a trauma surgeon, which means he's more intelligent than probably 99% of THR members. You may not agree with his politics, but don't question his intelligence.
You guys and the good doctor may BOTH be right; It wasn't the kid himself, nor the gun in his hands.
None of my rights are negotiable.
A Certified Public Accountant I know has stated that all doctors are charlatans, registered nurses are merely their lackeys, and that the entire medical profession is incompetent. He based his professional opinion on working through many of their financial affairs. The Licensed Realtor who was present at the time agreed on the basis of her own dealings with them. A Concealed Weapons Permit instructor volunteered that his experience was that they know nothing about firearms and are too arrogant to take instruction because they are convinced that they are more intelligent than other people.
Why? Because it would irresistibly compel anti-gunners to admit that they want to ban THOSE too, giving away the game and arousing the ire of the hunting lobby?P.S. And I definitely wouldn't mention "there are more powerful weapons in the hands of most hunters".
Been doing it since 1986. I can play them like a violin.You need to study your opponent's posistion before attacking it!
"Basically the faster the bullet is going the more damage it does, that's a basic, physical principle,” says Nebraska Medical Center Trauma Medical Director Dr. Joseph Stothert. “These are very high velocity weapons that are only meant to destroy tissue and kill people."
False. They only fix the patient. There are many people who clean up the mess.Makes sense; they're the ones who have to clean up the mess when bullets collide with bodies.
False. Debunked.The AMA for instance was instrumental in the withdrawal of the Black Talon . . . a particularly nasty round that puts the doctor at risk as well as the patient.
False. Debunked. Extensively.A Black Talon is so named because when it hits, it expands into a claw-like arrangement of "talons", each of which are razor-sharp. [. . .] The other half is to increase penetration just that tiny bit more by decreasing barrel friction (increasing muzzle velocity) and easing initial penetration.
False. Debunked -- by a surgeon no less.Before you say that no doctor would be stupid enough to poke a finger around in a bullet hole, <. . .>
<. . .> The Black Talon is, in short, a very nasty slug, and the controversy, not the least of which came from the AMA, . . .
Glib. Self-serving definitions.Probably, but it's not his intelligence you should question, but his wisdom. Intelligence is book smarts; knowing that you know stuff. Wisdom is world-smarts, which includes knowing that you DON'T know stuff.
What an odd thing to say. Given the history of the .308 round, that is.<. . .> while a .308 is a hunting round . . .
No. It requires observation and recognition and a refusal to engage in denial. Not a whole lot of science required.<. . .> But those crazies are sociopaths, the proactive detection of which is slightly beyond modern science.
Maybe not, but they are dishonest. Again, being "smart" is not a qualification.<. . .> I do not however advocate a "they're wrong because they're antis" position on every anti-gun statement made, as many on this board do. Those who are anti-gun are not unintelligent, knowledgeable, or otherwise unqualified mentally to speak on the subject.
Uh, no. To call the ignorant ignorant is not an insult. To call the dishonest dishonest is not an insult. To distort the words of the law and pretend to believe the lie thus engendered is dishonest. "Mentally qualified" or not, when you lie to me, I'm going to call you on it. Don't expect me to be polite.To say so is an insult to the majority of the people in this country, who either do not support gun rights, or who support them much the same as they support gay rights; You can do it, they just don't want to see it. <. . .>
Nah. Self-serving sophistry.I don't argue against the RKBA; I argue against ignorance, and gun nuts can be just as guilty as antis. I also argue for rights other than, as well as including, the RKBA. The irresistible force meets the immovable object every day in political discourse, especially concerning the BoR. SOMETHING HAS TO GIVE.
This is just straight-up crap. The Brady crowd does not exist for any such reason. It's about power and control. Remember, like you intimated earlier, they aren't stupid. They have to know that what they're doing can't work, thus their stated motives are false. And they're lying. And I'm not buying. And not willing to be polite about it either.The laws you oppose, and the Brady Bunch itself, exist so that infamous heinous crimes can never happen again, and thus peaceful, law-abiding citizens much like yourselves who DON'T feel the need to carry have a good likelihood of living out their lives having never been proved wrong.
No, that's not their drive. And if you actually believe it is, then you have been well and truly fooled.The same drive gave us Son of Sam laws (profits from criminal activity are forfeited to victims), Amber Alerts . . ., Jessica's Law . . ., and Teri's Law . . . The Brady Bunch has the same drive to make murders using firearms, unarguably an attractive mix of ease, range, shock value, and repetitiveness, a thing of the past.
Patently absurd. Simple speculation.That in and of itself is laudable. I disagree with their focus. Ban guns and criminals use knives. However, the opposite holds true as well; give everyone guns and criminals use bombs.
Actually, no. They DON'T have a point. Their entire point is disarming the population to change the balance of power and control. It has nothing to do with crime.Therefore the Brady Bunch is wrong only in that they focus on guns and not criminals. However, if you will not entertain the fact that the Brady Bunch might have a point, even though they follow it to the wrong conclusion, then all you're doing when you dismissively insult the arguments and those who raise them . . . It's unintelligent-sounding, insulting to the majority of Americans, and self-defeating.
Which is wrong-headed and very sad for them.The RKBA is not a globally-recognized right. Citizens of many countries, including our own, look at the RKBA as an antiquated remnant of an unorganized, "frontier-law" nation.
Lovely mis-characterization. Guilt by association. Note, the WEAPONS are guilty by association. Nice.The assault weapons you wish to protect possession of and free access to appear all the time in the hands of terrorists, religious extremists, murderers, drug lords, dictators, and the forces loyal to the above.
What a bizarre thing to say. At all.When an M4 or an AK-47 appears on the streets of a U.S. city, no matter whose hands it is in, s*** is hitting the fan.
Translation: guns are scary. Make them go away.They are icons of all that is hated by peaceful law-abiding citizens. To defend them sounds to an anti a lot like "rationalizing the irrational".
Starting to get squirrelly here. You generalize that which cannot be generalized. I object to permits. Period. I may use the fact that I had to endure a lot of crap (to get a permit) to my own ends, and this is not a conflict, it is a form of judo. When confronted with force that can do you harm, use what you can of it to your own advantage. The permit process interferes with the exercise of a right, and is anathema.To argue against permits for concealed carry, while at the same time recognizing that having a permit shows you have demonstrated sufficient proficiency and situational knowledge to safely carry a handgun in public, sounds a lot like implying that you do not think such proficiency or knowledge is necessary.
Okay, that's just silly.To argue against "gun-free zones", trumping a property owner's right to control said property with the all-important RKBA, sounds a lot like "I want to be Gary Cooper".
And that's just plain dishonest.Using the philosophy of "anything can be a weapon" to attempt to reduce gun control arguments to absurdity sounds a lot like "I don't know the difference between a gun, whose primary purpose is to kill things and break stuff, and a kitchen knife whose primary purpose is to chop vegetables".
Wow. That's worse than just ignorant, it's false on its face. The amendments, uh, you know, like, AMENDED the constitution, and were REQUIRED for its ratification. Yes, the Second Amendment DOES trump other stuff. That's what amendments do. And if your argument is that it doesn't "trump" the rest of the BoR, that's a fine strawman, but also nonsense.I support the RKBA. But I realize that the RKBA is the SECOND AMENDMENT. It was neither included in the original document, nor did it trump the list of the freedoms our Founders guaranteed.
Another red herring. Life is more important than free speech. Big deal. It doesn't invalidate free speech.There are more important things on that document than to give you the right to have a gun wherever and whenever you want, with no restrictions as to type, size, caliber, ammo capacity, muzzle energy or the explosive or armor-piercing capability of the bullet.
Uh, don't forget, the amendments occur LATER and add a bias that says, "while all this other stuff is true, thou shalt not mess with the guns, dude."For example, how about the very first sentence appearing on the Constitution, the reason it was written and the basis for EVERYTHING ELSE on that parchment. You're too busy "providing for the common Defense" and "securing the blessings of Liberty" to realize that the government must also "insure domestic Tranquility" and "promote the general Welfare". The government must balance ALL FOUR THINGS, in addition to forming "a more perfect Union" and "establishing Justice".
What makes you think that? The Second Amendment already IS the supreme law of the land. Further, your imaginary world where the presence of guns leads to epidemics of violence? Pure unfounded speculation.<Long exposition omitted.> And believe me, as bad as the gang problem is there, a battle fought between dozens or even hundreds of civilians armed with automatic weapons, with a lot of heart but no military training, would be like nothing any U.S. city has seen since the 1870's. It is untenable; you most certainly would not want to live in a world where the Second Amendment was the supreme law of the land.
And THIS statement is truly scary. Partly because it's untrue, and partly because it's socialist thinking. Looks to enforce equal outcomes.If you want pro-gun words out of my mouth, chew on these: Guns are equalizers. It is limits on guns that MAKE them equalizers.
Blather. It is from this fabric that the emperor's new clothes are made.If Auntie Sue sleeps with a .357 under her pillow she can aquit herself well against one or two robbers, even if they have guns of their own, but not against one or two robbers with automatic weapons. If automatic weapons are legal to own, they WILL be owned, they WILL be stolen, and they WILL be used by criminals against law-abiding citizens, even law-abiding gun owners. . . . [snip] . . . And that bodes ill for someone who, like Auntie Sue, cannot afford, cannot feed, cannot control, and/or cannot see the need to own an M60 and thus just sleeps with a .357 under her pillow. If a good night's sleep is only bought with superior firepower, only Number 1 is going to sleep soundly in his bed, surrounded by armed guards with The Button on his bedside table.
And hopefully continue to strive for elimination of the licensing process.However, I'm also a realist; unlicensed open carry will probably not happen, so if the compromise of licensed open carry comes along, as is currently the case in 13 states, I will take it.
Guns are dangerous. People are afraid of them. We should allow them to be regulated to keep them happy.Here's another news flash; nobody's always right. I'm not. You're not. [. . .] In addition, a statement doesn't have to be wholly true or wholly false. "Guns are evil" may be a false statement logically, but it doesn't negate the fact that a majority of Americans think that way, and even if it's totally fallacious to act on an ad populum argument, that happens to be exactly the way decisions are made in this country. "Guns kill" is also false in the literal sense. Load and chamber a pistol and set it down on a bench and you will die of old age long before the gun goes postal and kills everyone in the area. That does not negate the fact that a firearm is one of the best-suited tools for that particular job in the hand of someone so inclined. ANYTHING can be a weapon from the keys in your pocket to a stick of dynamite, but very few objects can be picked up, held in one hand, in one self-contained package, and with the pull of a lever can virtually instantaneously end a life at 25 yards, no specialist training required. In fact, it requires training for a person NOT to end up doing that unintentionally.
The emotions of other people determine how I choose to defend myself.I personally do not think guns are evil. I think if I could afford to own an AR-15 or an AK-47 it would be nice to have for a variety of reasons. It happens not to be a high priority; a Mossberg HD shotgun would definitely be higher on my "gotta-have guns" list, being cheaper, more powerful, and less threatening in profile (only face-on).
Guilt (of an inanimate object) by association. Look, the exercise of a right isn't a matter for "approval" by people who frighten easily or who are confused about symbols.I merely state that many people are uncomfortable around guns, and all the more so when the silhouette of said weapon used to be, and still is, the icon of our greatest enemies, seen on the news every night for the last 40 years in the hands of people who would party tomorrow and for a long time thereafter if the U.S. ceased to exist tonight. Or, alternately, a silhouette of a weapon normally in the hands of people that, even though they're on our side, are still very deadly, war-oriented people, capable of taking life, in some cases as easily as if were a video game.
Many others? Other what? Other guns? Other tools? Sorry, but this lacks coherence, so it's hard to respond.<rambling appeal to emotion omitted> . . . We as gun owners have to appeal to emotion (yet another fallacious argument), appeal to statistics, and appeal to what to us is blatantly obvious common sense; that one gun, or class of guns, or guns in general, are merely the tool, and there are MANY others that could be used that have absolutely no place in civilized society.
The term for this kind of hyperbole and theatrics is "trolling."Suit yourself. Advocate violent overthrow of the Bush Administration. Yell fire in a crowded theater. Invoke Satan or the Spirits of the Wood in a Catholic church. Call me the N-word (I dare you). It's your right under the First Amendment to freely express yourself with any word, anywhere.
That's a false assertion.Rights conflict. Period.
Arguing the strawman.Your free and untethered right to free speech can endanger my health, safety and welfare. My life, liberty and property must therefore trump any of your rights under the Constitution, 7 days a week.
Now, you see, that's just WRONG. The government doesn't have rights. It has powers. And those are supposed to be limited.The right of the government to continue to exist, which I guarantee you it will fight for, also trumps your rights.
Rights don't endanger. Mens rea endangers. Quit ascribing motive to inanimate objects. It's dishonest.Those restrictions apply to ANY right, including the RKBA; if your right, or the general right of individuals under the RKBA to own a particular weapon endangers me, my loved ones or my property, that weapon will be prohibited and removed from society.
Yeah, we know that. Nonetheless, that's precisely why we have the Second Amendment. To keep government in check. The fact of government's assuming unto itself unwarranted authority doesn't change that, rather it emphasizes the need.Also, if your right to keep and bear arms threatens the government or any of its agencies or agents, at any level, your weapons will be taken from you, and resistance will be met with deadly force.
And government by force is tyranny.That means if you can outshoot a SWAT team, you are a threat and will be dealt with accordingly. The government must defer to the people, but it must also exist; without government there is anarchy.
Evidence to the contrary notwithstanding . . .Now, it's not "me" who has the problem with your right to have a military rifle.
So, it's not you. It's your neighbor who's an idiot. Yet, here you stand, instead of educating your neighbor, you're arguing his case to us.It's my neighbor, or his neighbor, or whoever else thinks a particular weapon poses a clear and present danger to life, [. . .] Antis say the problem goes away with an AWB. I disagree; I've seen enough suicide bombers to know that a guy who has nothing left to lose will find any way he can to take as many with him as possible. But you can't deny that if military rifles were banned and not grandfathered for civilians, the percentage of crimes committed with them would drop drastically. It's not the answer; the last AWB proved it, but boy is it attractive to someone who sees no need for them in daily life.
Or YOU could convince your neighbor.Therefore, to combat any threat to your RKBA, you must be able to convince my neighbor and his neighbor that a gun is no more or less than a gun; it acts according to the will of its handler. The handler, therefore, is criminal.
Thank you, Eddie Izzard."Guns don't kill people..." is true, but so cliche'd that it has a ready answer: "yeah, but the gun sure helps".
Which has precisely nothing to do with the right to be armed.The solution to the problem is however still to reduce occurrences of criminal activity with any weapon or no weapon. [. . .] IT DID NOT HAPPEN OVERNIGHT; somebody knew about it, somebody could have reported it, somebody could have stopped it.
See above.For others its financial or a simple matter of survival; you cannot get what you want, or need, and so you steal it. [. . .] If any of this had been done, Omaha would not have happened in the first place. The kid would be in a mental hospital getting counseling, or in prison. Either way, he is no longer a danger to society.
Robert Hairless: Look up in the sky on some clear spring day and you, like Dr. Joseph Stothert, might see the flocks of AK-47s winging their way through the air en route to their breeding grounds.
- May 18, 1927: Andrew Kehoe killed 45 people and injured 58, most of them children, after he bombed the local school in Bath, Michigan.
- 1933 – 1945: Approximately 11 million Jews and others deemed “undesirable” were killed by the Nazis during the Holocaust. Most died in gas chambers while others were subject to Nazi experiments or died from various diseases.
- April 6, 1976 – December 12, 1978: John Wayne Gacy confesses to 33 murders of young men and boys in the Chicago, IL area that he choked with a rope or board while he sexually assaulted them.
- July 7, 1986: Juan Gonzalez attacked passengers on the Staten Island Ferry in New York City with a machete. Two were killed and nine were injured.
- March 20, 1995: Members of Aum Shinrikyo killed twelve, severely injured fifty, and caused temporary vision problems for nearly a thousand people after they unleashed Sarin gas in the Tokyo, Japan subway.
- April 19, 1995: The Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, OK was destroyed by a bomb planted by Terry Nichols and Timothy McVeigh, resulting in 168 deaths and 800 injuries.
- July 27, 1996: Two people died and 111 were injured when a bomb was detonated in Centennial Olympic Park in Atlanta, GA by Eric Robert Rudolph.
Sounds like the ones they tried in Britain and Australia....by the by, Liko.
i may be an unintelligent, ignorant redneck, so forgive me for slowing you down.... but what exsactly IS your argument to KEEP your RKBA rights? i really want to know....
Seems more to me that he wants us to argue on their terms, without hint of irony.It occurred to me that our new friend, Liko81, isn't so much proposing that we "give in" to the desires of those who want to take our guns, but rather lamenting that we have such poor arguments with which to persuade them.
Liko81 said:My life, liberty and property must therefore trump any of your rights under the Constitution, 7 days a week.
Liko81 said:Rights conflict. Period.
Oh, really?Liko81 said:The right of the government to continue to exist, which I guarantee you it will fight for, also trumps your rights.
THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE said:"Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just power from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it."
No, you don't "yell fire in a crowded theater" THAT'S NOT ON FIRE.You don't "yell fire in a crowded theater"
Deanimator said:No, you don't "yell fire in a crowded theater" THAT'S NOT ON FIRE.
And even if you do create a false alarm, you're punished AFTER THE FACT. The Constitution looks unkindly on prior restraints.