20
   

Gun Control: Bill to Ban Clips Over 10 Rounds

 
 
Intrepid
 
  2  
Tue 18 Jan, 2011 09:25 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
I think you are one of the inmates.
OmSigDAVID
 
  -1  
Tue 18 Jan, 2011 11:44 pm
@Intrepid,
Intrepid wrote:
I think you are one of the inmates.
I have ventured out, but I remain here most of the time
from torpor and contentment.





David
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  -1  
Tue 18 Jan, 2011 11:50 pm
@oralloy,
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Because of SWAT teams. No politician is seriously standing up
to the increasing militarization of our police force.

Cycloptichorn
oralloy wrote:
It's more than SWAT teams now.
Michigan State Police cars usually have a full-auto MP-5
in the trunk these days.
Thay have good taste in firepower.

Every American home shoud have at least 3 of them; very sweet.





David
Rockhead
 
  2  
Wed 19 Jan, 2011 12:05 am
@OmSigDAVID,
I dunno, dave.

you could give 'em to poor folks, but they are likely to sell them to buy food...
OmSigDAVID
 
  -1  
Wed 19 Jan, 2011 12:15 am
@Rockhead,
Rockhead wrote:
I dunno, dave.

you could give 'em to poor folks, but they are likely to sell them to buy food...
"GIVE" them??? Kiddest thou Me? Well, maybe for Christmas.
As a supporter of laissez faire capitalism,
I assumed that thay 'd be purchased, the same as cars, TVs or anything else.





David
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  -1  
Wed 19 Jan, 2011 12:19 am

Altho, I will admit: unexpected giving CAN be fun, vicariously and empathetically.





David
Rockhead
 
  2  
Wed 19 Jan, 2011 12:22 am
@OmSigDAVID,
so you've stated previously.

I think it only counts if it's done anonymously.

when it's done as a show, it loses something critical.

IMHO
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Wed 19 Jan, 2011 01:48 am
@Rockhead,
Rockhead wrote:
so you've stated previously.

I think it only counts if it's done anonymously.

when it's done as a show, it loses something critical.

IMHO
I 've done it both ways, Rocky.
I disagree about "only counts" as u put it.
(Please explain your reasoning qua this limitation.)

My reasoning is that what counts is
how much joy u create by the kind act.
That joy can be created in the recipient,
in the donor (me) and in witnesses.
For instance, I 've given unexpected cash
to children, while their parents were nearby, observing.
That has THRILLED them. Thay LOVE it; elation; huge smiles, or winks,
or thay came over and shook my hand or embraced me, invited me to dinner.

On the other hand, qua anonymous donation,
e.g., in the 1980s I was seeing a young lady
who had an 8 year old boy. I travel a lot.
While in a distant state, I sent him a letter,
to be postmarked therein, saying (as well as I recall):

"Mr. Joe Blow
street address
Forest HIlls, NY

Dear Sir:

1. It is the purpose of this writing to inform you that you won second prize in the Contest.

2. Here 's the money. [ A $1OO.oo bill was enclosed.]

3. Better luck next time.

The Contest Committee "

I was never identified to that gift.
It can be fun to screw with people 's heads, if u do it right.
I reasoned that each time that he told his friends
or his grandchildren, about this unusual occurrence, he 'd re-live it,
at no expense to me. I also liked the iconoclasm of disproving that:
"there is no such thing as a free lunch."

Giving to children can be efficient,
in that their cash flows r usually smaller,
so that thay will get a bigger emotional lift, by the unfamiliarity of it,
e.g., once at a summer resort, I met a lady who mentioned that her son
(whom she pointed out) was 12. He was having his birthday.
Later that day, I had a $2O bill and a $1O bill immediately at hand, and gave them to him.

A few weeks later, he said: "U know, David, when u put that money in my hand,
that was the most money that I ever held in my LIFE."

Someone has commented that:
" Life is a succession of special moments strung together by boredom."

I have not found that anonymity is indispensable, Rocky.





David
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Wed 19 Jan, 2011 09:24 am
@BillRM,
You're ignoring me, remember?
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Wed 19 Jan, 2011 09:29 am
@joefromchicago,
joefromchicago wrote:
You're ignoring me, remember?
Surely, u r too nice to be ignored.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Wed 19 Jan, 2011 09:31 am
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:

joefromchicago wrote:
No, that's not the difference at all.

Correct. Not "the" difference -- just similar to the difference.

Laughing

oralloy wrote:
And I intend more than to show hypocrisy, if it is agreed that these clips have no purpose other than murdering innocent people, I seriously mean to argue that the police need to be stripped of any ability to use these clips.

If.

oralloy wrote:
joefromchicago wrote:
and I can appreciate just how difficult it must be to make sense out of that argument,


I'm not having any difficulty.

Really? You should see it from here.

oralloy wrote:
I don't think so. The absence of any posts that even try to give a reason why we should provide the police with equipment "that has the sole purpose of murdering innocent people" is pretty conspicuous.

That's because you're arguing against a strawman.

oralloy wrote:
Whether it is legitimate for different rules to apply to the police depends on the specifics of those rules. If you or anyone else puts forward a reason why the police should have equipment that has the sole purpose of murdering innocent people, I'll analyze the reason and then go from there.

And yet another strawman.
snood
 
  2  
Wed 19 Jan, 2011 08:58 pm
Hilarious. The guy goes on and on and on about the JOY he gets from giving.

Nothing self-aggrandizing or ironic here, move along...
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -2  
Thu 20 Jan, 2011 03:20 am
@joefromchicago,
joefromchicago wrote:
oralloy wrote:
And I intend more than to show hypocrisy, if it is agreed that these clips have no purpose other than murdering innocent people, I seriously mean to argue that the police need to be stripped of any ability to use these clips.


If.


Ah. Do you believe there is some other purpose for high-capacity magazines besides murdering lots of people?

What purpose might this be? And would it also be something that would be useful to ordinary people who are caught in a self-defense situation?





joefromchicago wrote:
oralloy wrote:
joefromchicago wrote:
and I can appreciate just how difficult it must be to make sense out of that argument,


I'm not having any difficulty.


Really? You should see it from here.


We'll see.
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Thu 20 Jan, 2011 09:14 am
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:
Ah. Do you believe there is some other purpose for high-capacity magazines besides murdering lots of people?

What purpose might this be?

Shooting lots and lots of clay pigeons.

oralloy wrote:
And would it also be something that would be useful to ordinary people who are caught in a self-defense situation?

Plenty of things are useful to ordinary people who are caught in a self-defense situation. What's your point?
roger
 
  1  
Thu 20 Jan, 2011 02:43 pm
@oralloy,
Possibly, someone should have said kill instead of murder.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Tue 25 Jan, 2011 08:55 am

I think that Carolyn 's bill was sent to the House Judiciary Committee.
I predict that it will die there, of neglected old age.





David
H2O MAN
 
  0  
Tue 25 Jan, 2011 10:23 am
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:



I predict that it will die there, of neglected old age.


+1
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -1  
Tue 25 Jan, 2011 12:50 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:
oralloy wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Because of SWAT teams. No politician is seriously standing up
to the increasing militarization of our police force.

Cycloptichorn


It's more than SWAT teams now.

Michigan State Police cars usually have a full-auto MP-5
in the trunk these days.


Thay have good taste in firepower.

Every American home shoud have at least 3 of them; very sweet.





David


Unless the gun is tripod-mounted and belt-fed, I'm unconvinced of the superiority of full-auto.

I'd much rather have a semi-auto assault rifle chambered for .308 NATO, or even a pump shotgun loaded with slugs.
oralloy
 
  -1  
Tue 25 Jan, 2011 12:51 pm
@joefromchicago,
joefromchicago wrote:
oralloy wrote:
Ah. Do you believe there is some other purpose for high-capacity magazines besides murdering lots of people?

What purpose might this be?


Shooting lots and lots of clay pigeons.


Sorry. Skeet shooting does not require guns over two rounds.

And it is not a police duty in any case, so it could not be a justification for special police privileges even if it did require high-capacity magazines.



joefromchicago wrote:
oralloy wrote:
And would it also be something that would be useful to ordinary people who are caught in a self-defense situation?


Plenty of things are useful to ordinary people who are caught in a self-defense situation. What's your point?


There is a huge difference between trying to ban "an item that has a strong negative impact on society and no positive value for society" and trying to ban "an item that has some negative impact on society that is counterbalanced with some positive value for society".
oralloy
 
  -1  
Tue 25 Jan, 2011 12:53 pm
@roger,
roger wrote:
Possibly, someone should have said kill instead of murder.


That wouldn't have served their purposes. They were trying to pretend that such magazines have a huge negative impact on society and have no positive value.

It also wouldn't have done them any good. I'd have demolished their position regardless.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 01/07/2025 at 04:03:01