VisorCentral.com - Inane ramblings

Pages (73): « First ... « 17 18 19 20 21 [22] 23 24 25 26 27 » ... Last »
Show 20 posts from this thread on one page

VisorCentral.com (http://discussion.visorcentral.com/vcforum/index.php)
- Off Topic (http://discussion.visorcentral.com/vcforum/forumdisplay.php?forumid=6)
-- Inane ramblings (http://discussion.visorcentral.com/vcforum/showthread.php?threadid=16736)

Posted by K. Cannon on 01-17-2002 04:07 PM:

A-HA!!

I knew that someone would be unable to resurrect this high-quality(!) thread...and I should've known it would be you, DB!

Question: Did you actually go back and re-read the entire thing??

Posted by dick-richardson on 01-17-2002 04:58 PM:

It's rather like the mythical phoenix. From the ashes of the visor rises ramblings inane. Coherency trembles at the

click

click

click

of my keyboard. Fear me, rational thought, for all that is sensible stands in peril.

__________________
-Joshua
Abortion: Darwinism at its finest.

Posted by dick-richardson on 01-17-2002 05:12 PM:

Let's talk about something controversial. How about hunting? God knows we've beaten Jesus to death.

__________________
-Joshua
Abortion: Darwinism at its finest.

Posted by septimus on 01-17-2002 05:16 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by dick-richardson
Let's talk about something controversial. How about hunting? God knows we've beaten Jesus to death.

Don't you mean "Jesus knows we've beaten God to death"? yuk yuk yuk

I did reread some of the thread, and laughed again at the "I've decided to become enigmatic" post. Still perfect.

re: hunting: Hunting good. Deer become more populous than mosquitoes bad. OTOH, automatic assault rifles bad. NRA almost completely bad. Heston bad, though he has done a few good roles.

__________________
Don't like somebody? Click "Profile" on a post and then click "Ignore "so and so's" posts". Voila!

Posted by GSR13 on 01-17-2002 05:16 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by dick-richardson
Let's talk about something controversial. How about hunting? God knows we've beaten Jesus to death.

The thing about hunting, is most people are okay with that. But tell those same people you own a handgun for self defense and they want to tar and feather you.

So, I say lets discuss the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. That ought to bring out some controversy.

__________________
In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. JOHN 14:2

Posted by GSR13 on 01-17-2002 05:19 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by dietrichbohn

Don't you mean "Jesus knows we've beaten God to death"? yuk yuk yuk

I did reread some of the thread, and laughed again at the "I've decided to become enigmatic" post. Still perfect.

re: hunting: Hunting good. Deer become more populous than mosquitoes bad. OTOH, automatic assault rifles bad. NRA almost completely bad. Heston bad, though he has done a few good roles.

See, this is my point exactly. Hunting is okay because we are helping the environment, but automatic rifles and handguns are wrong.

__________________
In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. JOHN 14:2

Posted by homer on 01-17-2002 05:19 PM:

quote:
So, I say lets discuss the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

How about the right to keep bears? Should circuses be able to force them to ride bikes?

__________________
We're all naked if you turn us inside out.
-David Byrne

Posted by dick-richardson on 01-17-2002 05:29 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by homer
How about the right to keep bears? Should circuses be able to force them to ride bikes?

You forgot to take your medication, didn't you?

As for the safety of the bears, some circuses are using segways.

__________________
-Joshua
Abortion: Darwinism at its finest.

Posted by dick-richardson on 01-17-2002 05:36 PM:

Must I be serious? The more people have guns, the lower the crime rate. The psychology is pretty simple, really - esp. for someone who only understands violence (e.g. someone with a disposition toward violent crime). I'm not going to break into someone's house if I know they are armed. And how many gun crimes are committed with legally purchased guns? Enforce gun locks and education and you remove 90% of accidental gun deaths.

__________________
-Joshua
Abortion: Darwinism at its finest.

Posted by septimus on 01-17-2002 05:37 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by GSR13
The thing about hunting, is most people are okay with that. But tell those same people you own a handgun for self defense and they want to tar and feather you.

So, I say lets discuss the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. That ought to bring out some controversy.

...

See, this is my point exactly. Hunting is okay because we are helping the environment, but automatic rifles and handguns are wrong.

Well, hunting is ok simply because it's a moral non-entity so long as you're not being cruel, IMO. Non-intelligent carnivores hunting is a moral nonentity, adding intelligence shouldn't change that. (well, I know more than a few vegetarians who take issue with this, so I guess we can have at it... but frankly I usually find myself running short on patience with that........)

Right to bear arms, or arm bears, or whatever:

let's be pedantic:

quote:
Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security
of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear
arms, shall not be infringed.

...well, who the hell wrote that sentence? I would get kicked out of english class if I allowed that into a paper. sheesh!

ok, so there's a serious problem with the grammar of this sentence, namely: the most important clause of the sentence "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" does no work whatsoever in the sentence. It has no referent. The sentence "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, shall not be infringed." works just fine without it.

..ok, ok, so there's an implied "and" there. If I were the editor, it would read: "Being necessacry to the security of a free state, a well regulated milita and the right of the people to bear arms will not be infringed."

right, so, the 2nd amendment pretty clearly is meant to provide for the armament of both "militias" and "the people." and now I'm going to trot out the tired old "different times, different interpretations" argument.

1) Back in the day, the only people who could go on killcrazy rampages were governments. They had no gangs (by our standards, anyway), and 'the people' who would be bearing arms were meant to be rich, white guys. Also, shooting somebody took about 1 minute of preparation between shots, with an accuracy rate that is laughable by our standards. We live in different times.

2) Dude, it's the consitution, it ain't the bible. (hell, even if it was, but we're avoiding that....). it's fallible. Black people are 2/3's people? Women ain't at all? You have to have land? No income tax? All these things have changed with the times. It's ok.

3) Ok, so Jefferson and Franklin and such got a point (lord, i just has this conversation 2 nights ago, thanks Mike!), "Those willing to give up a little liberty for a little security deserve neither security nor liberty." (Franklin). Me, I don't want a gun. Hell, i don't want felons having guns. But people should be allowed to have guns.

4) So I want a compromise. sure, have your guns, but you can't have cop-killing automatic laser-guided smart assault rifles. And you need a license. no, I'm not kidding, an honest-to-god-got-your-picutre-on-it-and-is-tracked-by-the-government-license. And they can revoke it if you're a felon. None of these measures breaks the 2nd amendment.

yep, that's where I stand. As to giving bears guns, sure.... why not?

__________________
Don't like somebody? Click "Profile" on a post and then click "Ignore "so and so's" posts". Voila!

Posted by dick-richardson on 01-17-2002 05:43 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by dietrichbohn
...As to giving bears guns, sure.... why not?

But what about bears on Segways?

__________________
-Joshua
Abortion: Darwinism at its finest.

Posted by septimus on 01-17-2002 05:43 PM:

Oh, and waiting periods and background checks: hells yes waiting periods and background checks.

..and I'm expecting those who say that giving the gov't that much control defeats the purpose. You don't trust your gov't, fine, fix it. That's why we live in a republic, because there are mechanisms to fix it. Back campaign finance reform. Get it through, goddamnit.

Who would you rather have in charge, a multicorp that secretly funnels money into the chambers of power, or a transparent government beholden to you as the voter, a gov't that has built into it the kinds of checks and balances that no corporation will ever have.

__________________
Don't like somebody? Click "Profile" on a post and then click "Ignore "so and so's" posts". Voila!

Posted by septimus on 01-17-2002 05:46 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by dick-richardson
But what about bears on Segways?

yes.

but only if the salmon have aquatic, armed segways as well. they have the right to self-defense, after all! The criminals, er, bears have guns, so should we, er salmon! yeah, that's the solution, give everybody guns! That's totally reasonable! Arm the whole gd populace. That makes so much sense!

...oh, and while I'm at it, if a gun isn't immediately linkable to a specific person, it gets documented and destroyed.

__________________
Don't like somebody? Click "Profile" on a post and then click "Ignore "so and so's" posts". Voila!

Posted by GSR13 on 01-17-2002 05:52 PM:

I agree with DickRichardson. Educate our children on the proper use of firearms. As for forcing people to use trigger locks, well that is a debate in itself. I do believe that a gun should always be secured in a home, particularly those homes with children. However, I prefer a small bedside safe over a trigger lock. It is easier to access and safer, in my opinion, than trying to remove a trigger lock from a loaded handgun.

I live in Georgia and have a Concealed Carry Permit. While I believe in these permits, I certainly would not be opposed with requiring some sort of firearms training before being allowed to get one.

I also prefer a middle ground of some kind. While I am not in favor of bans, such as the ones on assault rifles and high capacity magazines, I am in favor of getting guns out of the hands of criminals. Unfortunately, there is not an easy way to accomplish this.

I believe in the war the NRA is fighting, but not in everything they do to achieve victory. On the other hand, you almost have to be extreme to fight the anti-gunners. I think most gun owners would be happy with middle ground, the problem is, give them an inch and they will take a mile.

__________________
In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. JOHN 14:2

Posted by GSR13 on 01-17-2002 05:54 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by dick-richardson

But what about bears on Segways?

As advanced as this may seem, it kind of takes some of the skill out of it, right

__________________
In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. JOHN 14:2

Posted by septimus on 01-17-2002 05:58 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by GSR13
I also prefer a middle ground of some kind. While I am not in favor of bans, such as the ones on assault rifles and high capacity magazines,

Any particular reason why not?

quote:
I believe in the war the NRA is fighting, but not in everything they do to achieve victory. On the other hand, you almost have to be extreme to fight the anti-gunners. I think most gun owners would be happy with middle ground, the problem is, give them an inch and they will take a mile.

Well, figuring out who's more extreme is a chicken and egg type deal. I personally think we've got a bit more than a mile to go to get sane gun laws on the books. I think (or at least hope) that the "anti-gunners" would also be happy with some middle ground. problem is, as you said, both sides are so voracious that the slightest hint of compromise is jumped on by the other side.

The NRA isn't fighting a war. Extreme rhetoric like that exacerbates the problem. They're fighting a public relations campaign. War implies that there are enemies to be defeated, enemies who may be morally inferior. That is not the case for either side here.

__________________
Don't like somebody? Click "Profile" on a post and then click "Ignore "so and so's" posts". Voila!

Posted by dick-richardson on 01-17-2002 06:14 PM:

I did not mean to imply that the government should enforce education and gun locks. Just that they need to be enforced. I disagree with the idea that fanaticism should be used to fight fanaticism.

__________________
-Joshua
Abortion: Darwinism at its finest.

Posted by homer on 01-17-2002 06:14 PM:

quote:
Must I be serious? The more people have guns, the lower the crime rate.

So? The more people have guns, the more people get shot. Maybe petty theft goes down, murder goes up?

quote:
And how many gun crimes are committed with legally purchased guns?

Quite a few, actually. In addition there are a LOT of accidental deaths due to firearms (mainly with children).

quote:
Enforce gun locks and education and you remove 90% of accidental gun deaths.

Actually, improving education would take care of most of our country's problems.

Are there any brits or aussies that would like to jump in with their opinions? I know they look at our country as a bunch of crazy gun-toting fools. (which is quite accurate, actually!

)

__________________
We're all naked if you turn us inside out.
-David Byrne

Posted by Toby on 01-17-2002 06:31 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by homer
How about the right to keep bears? Should circuses be able to force them to ride bikes?

You've got it all wrong. It's 'the right to keep and arm bears'. This means that it's our $DEITY-given right to train killer bears with automatic assault rifles to protect our property.

Posted by dick-richardson on 01-17-2002 06:38 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by homer
So? The more people have guns, the more people get shot. Maybe petty theft goes down, murder goes up?

I entirely disagree. The more people who have guns, the more accidental deaths you may have initially - until education is enforced. Take a look at SD's violent crime rate vs. the % who own guns. Or Switzerland.

quote:
Quite a few, actually.

But not by the person who purchased the firearm - IOW, all you need is gun locks and education.

quote:
Are there any brits or aussies that would like to jump in with their opinions?

Or Swiss.

It's like alcohol. Reducing freedom increases crime. We had a German foreign exchange student in high school who was completely perplexed at the fascination with alcohol. The answer to alcohol-related crimes (and even alcoholism to a limited degree) is to eliminate the minimum drinking age, not raise it.

Anyway, back on topic. I own a handgun. I haven't shot anyone, nor will I - unless the lives of my family are endangered. And if it weren't for our whiny-ass legal system, I wouldn't shoot to kill.

__________________
-Joshua
Abortion: Darwinism at its finest.

All times are GMT. The time now is 07:18 AM.

Pages (73): « First ... « 17 18 19 20 21 [22] 23 24 25 26 27 » ... Last »
Show 20 posts from this thread on one page