The Gun debate sandbox

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
This thread has been locked
Messages 5141 - 5160 of total 5441 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Mar 17, 2015 - 11:55pm PT
Translation: We need more guns because there's a lot of people running around with guns.

We need guns in the hands of good, law-abiding citizens because there's bad, not law-abiding citizens running around with guns, and the cops can't be everywhere in the nick of time to defend the good citizens.

There, fixed it for you, Gary.
donini

Trad climber
Ouray, Colorado
Mar 18, 2015 - 07:18am PT
"Debate" sandbox......don't think so. Why debate when you can pontificate?
Gary

Social climber
Desolation Basin, Calif.
Mar 18, 2015 - 07:20am PT
donini, the Internets was invented so we could pontificate. That's what makes it fun.

Madbolter, that the proliferation of guns in society can be cured by the proliferation of guns in society just doesn't make sense to me. I'm sure it does wonders for Sam Colt's bottom line, though.
Dingus Milktoast

Gym climber
Maestro, Ecosystem Ministry, Fatcrackistan
Mar 18, 2015 - 07:35am PT
^^^ Gary now you know the logic of why the Iranians want nukes.

DMT
Reilly

Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
Mar 18, 2015 - 07:47am PT
Hey, Jim, tell us about the gangs in Ouray. And I bet you have a higher than average gun
ownership rate there but a lower than average gun crime rate. And wazzup with the open
carrying of midieval battle weaponry there all winter? Hasn't that lead to wanton mayhem?
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Mar 18, 2015 - 07:53am PT
Why debate when you can pontificate?

LOL

From what I've observed, pontification is exactly your style.
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Mar 18, 2015 - 08:04am PT
Madbolter, that the proliferation of guns in society can be cured by the proliferation of guns in society just doesn't make sense to me.

Let's say that every person that owned and carried a gun was 100% perfect in their responsibility, situational awareness, and law-abiding nature. Would proliferation of guns be any problem then? After all, in such a scenario a gun would never be misused, and guns would rarely be used, because criminals would not have nor use guns. In such a scenario the number of guns would be irrelevant to the rate of misuse of guns, because there would be no misuse of guns.

Now, think about speed. We've had it foisted off on us (as a massive revenue-generating scheme) that speed limits save lives, because "speed kills." But even scratching the surface on the facts reveals that it is not speed that kills but differential of speed that kills. In LA, for example, it is common for literally millions of people to be speeding along the freeways at 75+ MPH, bumper to bumper, and per-capita accidents on the LA freeways are quite infrequent (especially compared to the I25 here in Denver, which at any given moment has an accident clearing and lanes shut down). LA drivers have learned how to cram together, pretty much get in line, and just BLAST along in flagrant violation of the arbitrarily low speed limit. That is a "proliferation of speed."

But, as with a "proliferation of guns," speed in the right hands is no problem.

The "things" are NOT the problem. And the vast, vast majority of gun owners are not the problem (as evidenced just above in that video). Guns, as with speed, CAN and almost always ARE handled responsibly. The real "gun problem" we face is a criminal problem!

Take out gangland America, and you very quickly solve most of the "gun problem," and you would probably even motivate less "gun proliferation" among everyday citizens. Until then, however, you can continue to worry about the "things" that are not the problem.
fear

Ice climber
hartford, ct
Mar 18, 2015 - 08:31am PT
And if you consider what might be some of the major components that fuel "gangland America" I'd argue (debate... or I might just pontificate) that yet another absurd US Government failed effort is at fault here.

The BS "War on Drugs". No different then prohibition in my opinion. Doesn't work and will never work when you try to fight the supply side of a demand problem. Let's spend billions of dollars in a fruitless effort to ban certain types of foliage that will grow in most people's yards. Let's try to hunt and kill people smuggling such foliage over an impossibly massive border. Sure... that will work.

Again government intrusion has CAUSED many of these issues which then erupt into violence and lead to even more failed attempts of the government to convince the sheep that more laws will keep them safe...

It's nonsense...

Gary

Social climber
Desolation Basin, Calif.
Mar 18, 2015 - 09:09am PT
Let's say that every person that owned and carried a gun was 100% perfect in their responsibility, situational awareness, and law-abiding nature. Would proliferation of guns be any problem then? After all, in such a scenario a gun would never be misused, and guns would rarely be used, because criminals would not have nor use guns. In such a scenario the number of guns would be irrelevant to the rate of misuse of guns, because there would be no misuse of guns.


And if you take cranberries and stew them like applesauce
they taste much more like prunes than rubarb does.

Let me know when your perfect world arrives, and I'll support a gun in every hand.
Gnome Ofthe Diabase

climber
Out Of Bed
Mar 18, 2015 - 09:11am PT
DO YOU REALLY WANT ME ARMED WITH ANYTHING MORE THAN A WRIST ROCKET??

Sorry to butt in I do not lurk here ! and I see that a good deal of thought and passion is carrying this thread.
Hey this is all just to yell at FEAR , I am the Maven of southern Connecticut and need a rope gun. If it ever warms up and before the bugs hit, do you want to rope up and bag some 1st free ascents? PM me or stomp me here it is what a non-carrying troll should expect.
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Mar 18, 2015 - 11:12am PT
Let me know when your perfect world arrives

I knew you would respond that way... missing the point, which is that the TOOL is not the problem.

Read Fear's post just above. Government intrusion causes problems, which it then spends vast amounts of OUR money to "solve," thus causing yet more layers of problems, which it then spends even more of OUR money to "solve," thus.... Well, rinse and repeat until you are 17 TRILLION in DEBT, and then spend virtually all productive time dividing the country into PARTY politics about how to "solve" the problems that are, literally, just the problems introduced BY government doing countless things it has NO business doing in the first place.

And the net effect is a steady whittling away of our liberties... all, of course, in the name of "safety" and of "serving us."

I don't want government "serving me" except for in a VERY few, VERY constrained contexts. You know, like the constitution originally said: limited powers.

Getting government OUT of all of these prohibition-style "wars on" things would save us a TON of money and begin to undo the vast social problems that government introduced in the first place.
ECF

Big Wall climber
Ouray, CO.
Mar 18, 2015 - 11:21am PT
You have got to be kidding me...
You finally finished the last endlessly pointless debate of fallacious assertions, and now you are hot on Guns?
Look, here is absolutely everything you need to know about guns.
1) they exist
2) no amount of wishing is going to change that
3) if you don't want one, don't own one.
4) if you want to stop other people from having guns, you are going to need guns.
5) take away every gun, and someone will make another, it's not hard.

Bandy silly ideas about all you want.
When push comes to shoot, you are unarmed.

History.
Learn it.

madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Mar 18, 2015 - 11:33am PT
I'll support a gun in every hand.

Now, see... I find that line just confusing. I mean, you already DO. Right?

I mean, you support our constitution. Right?

Is there something confusing about what the word "infringe" means? Clearly not.

So, you MUST support the constitution when it says that government shall not infringe upon the already-presumed right to keep and BEAR arms.

So, you must already support a gun in every hand. Don't put it in future tense or tie it to some "ideal" scenario. You ALREADY, right now, support a gun in every hand.

Right?

;-)
Gary

Social climber
Desolation Basin, Calif.
Mar 18, 2015 - 11:37am PT
Is there something about well regulated militia you don't understand?

Besides, the constitution was cleverly designed to change when need be. Behold, African-Americans are no longer only 5/8ths of a person.
Ksolem

Trad climber
Monrovia, California
Mar 18, 2015 - 12:09pm PT
Behold, African-Americans are no longer only 5/8ths of a person.

Gary, do you know why that was done? What the result was and how poorly things might have gone if it hadn't?
Adventurer

Mountain climber
Virginia
Mar 18, 2015 - 12:35pm PT
DMT wrote: "Gary, now you have the logic of why the Iranians want nukes"

+1

If I lived in a place where a bunch of bad guys were constantly running around with guns, I'd solve the problem by relocating.
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Mar 18, 2015 - 12:36pm PT
Is there something about well regulated militia you don't understand?

Besides, the constitution was cleverly designed to change when need be. Behold, African-Americans are no longer only 5/8ths of a person.

We've had this hoary, old argument before. The "militia" perspective is totally debunked. The amendment presumes the right; it does not grant the right. The militia is given as just ONE of many examples (many surrounding documents, such as the Federalist Papers, list many more) of a benefit provided BY the right, not the basis upon which the right was "granted." The government cannot grant the right; it can only presume it. The "militia" argument makes a basic logical error; it takes a clause that is in the antecedent position and contemplates it as false. The fallacy that results is the formal fallacy of "denying the antecedent," as follows:

P: A well-regulated militia....
Q: The right... shall not be infringed.

P > Q
~P

~Q

Always fallacious. If it's raining, then the streets are wet. It's not raining. Therefore the streets are not wet.

Yes, the antecedent is a sufficient condition for the truth of the consequent. But if the antecedent is false or unknown, the truth of the consequent is unthreatened.

The argument focusing on "no need of a militia at this point" is both logically invalid and entirely misses the clear verbiage of the amendment that references a pre-existing right. The amendment does not grant the right; it presumes it and explicitly limits government's power regarding it.

Now, regarding the constitution being changeable, yes, of course. You and your ilk just might manage to get that amendment changed. But as soon as you managed it, you would have only succeeded in assembling a majority faction. That itself is rendered illegitimate by both natural rights (upon which this nation was founded) and by the surrounding documents of the founders themselves (federalists and anti-federalists alike), who flatly stated that such factious behavior would indeed render "free men" duty bound to revolt.

Manage to achieve such a majority faction, and you have established the "tyranny of the majority" in violation of the very rights the founding of this nation presumes. Then, yes, you WILL have a fight on your hands.

And, ironically, YOUR side will be unarmed. LOL
Gary

Social climber
Desolation Basin, Calif.
Mar 18, 2015 - 12:39pm PT
Gary, do you know why that was done? What the result was and how poorly things might have gone if it hadn't?

Yes, Kris, the slave owners wanted to have their cake and it it, too. They wanted their slaves to count towards population for representation, but didn't actually want to let them vote.

Just an example of the US Constitution changing as the nation becomes more enlightened. The constitution is not a holy document, as some seem to believe. It has continued to change for the better, IMO.
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Mar 18, 2015 - 12:41pm PT
The constitution is not a holy document, as some seem to believe.

Do you think that it can "evolve" to become just anything at all, as long as "the majority" wants things a certain way?

Do you believe in inalienable rights?
Gary

Social climber
Desolation Basin, Calif.
Mar 18, 2015 - 12:44pm PT
And, ironically, YOUR side will be unarmed. LOL

When the military coup does come and overthrow our republic, and it will happen, "you and your ilk" will be on the side of the military fighting against liberty. Now how's that for irony? lol
Messages 5141 - 5160 of total 5441 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
 
Our Guidebooks
Check 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks


Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Review Categories
Recent Trip Report and Articles
Recent Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews