Another major school shooting today ... Newtown, Conn

@H2O MAN,

I tought there was nothing you hate--or is this just another Waterdude delusion?

Hmmm--methinks the Waterdude is delusional--

Rap

1 Reply

@parados,

Quote:

Re: Frank Apisa (Post 5236102)
The issue Bill fails to address is that one person's rights can interfere with another person's rights. That requires that rights be balanced against other rights.

Bill is tunnel visioned on this, Parados. Many advocates of gun rights are. Frankly, I think they have some decent points to make in support of their positions, but they destroy their credibility by refusing to see anything that is not in lock step with their position.

This is not confined to gun rights advocates in our country. It seems that advocacy has gotten so strident that there is almost no willingness to even acknowledge opposing views...let alone give them credence.

0 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

Tell us again how your statement doesn't imply that a law must stop all instances of something or be a failure. You sure seem to imply that.

Really?
My statement "Hmmm and I wonder what went wrong seeing that 9/11 occurred." implies "a law must stop all instances of something or be a failure."
You can take it to imply that such a law, generally speaking, was not a "reasoned" measure, but tell me how did you reach the conclusion to implying from my comment that "a law must stop all instances of something or be a failure." It's not the first time I've caught you with double standards.
Say if one of the dim witted liberals making minimum wage who repeats propaganda like a tape recorder made such a comment, I wonder if you'd start your useless interrogation on the premise that such a comment implies "a law must stop all instances of something or be a failure."

Here are my responses to the post that I missed.

Parados wrote:

I am curious how you propose to enforce a law that bans flies. Who will you prosecute?

Oh it's not me who want to enforce such laws, I'm trying to hypothesize how you plan to solve this impending crisis.

Parados wrote:

Your attempt to use flies is silly because humans don't own, manufacture or sell flies.

That comment is silly, seeing that you believed a response with banter to be a serious proposition. LOL, no coffee today?

Parados wrote:

By the way, we do pass laws to help restrict the number of mosquitoes when we pass laws that restrict standing water. It is illegal for me to keep old tires on my property that contain standing water. Mosquitoes still exist but we do try to control them.

Ok so why do we control them? Flies and mosquito are both insects correct? By your logic humans supposedly don't own, manufacture or sell mosquito. Who will you prosecute Parados? Seeing that you think we need someone to prosecute as well as meet the criteria that it must be either owned, manufactured or sold by humans to enforce laws in restricting something.

1 Reply

@Val Killmore,

Quote:

My statement "Hmmm and I wonder what went wrong seeing that 9/11 occurred." implies "a law must stop all instances of something or be a failure."
You can take it to imply that such a law, generally speaking, was not a "reasoned" measure,

No, you can't take it as that since you asked for specifics about how the law worked on 9/11. A reasoned measure would be understood to not cover every instance so would never ask for specific instances that weren't covered. In fact a reasonable person would understand that no law can prevent everything.

Quote:

It's not the first time I've caught you with double standards.

What you think and what others see are often quite different.

Quote:

Say if one of the dim witted liberals making minimum wage who repeats propaganda like a tape recorder made such a comment, I wonder if you'd start your useless interrogation on the premise that such a comment implies "a law must stop all instances of something or be a failure."

If someone implies something why would I start it any different? In fact I have done similar things to liberals when they make the same logical mistakes you are making.

Quote:

That comment is silly, seeing that you believed a response with banter to be a serious proposition. LOL, no coffee today?

So your analogy wasn't meant as an actual argument? It was just silliness that in no way supported anything. OK. My mistake for thinking you could actually make an argument good, bad, or otherwise.

Quote:

Ok so why do we control them?

You quoted me. Do you need someone to read it to you?

1 Reply

@raprap,

U tought rong

0 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

No, you can't take it as that since you asked for specifics about how the law worked on 9/11. A reasoned measure would be understood to not cover every instance so would never ask for specific instances that weren't covered. In fact a reasonable person would understand that no law can prevent everything.

That is where you are wrong. You wouldn't call a program a reasoned measure after it failed to do what it was supposed to do. Especially if the failure by such a program is one of the biggest tragedy the nation faced by the hands of terror.

Parados wrote:

If someone implies something why would I start it any different? In fact I have done similar things to liberals when they make the same logical mistakes you are making.

Making justifications for your double standards is pretty pointless. Just accept it as part of your character.
Regarding logical mistakes, you still haven't answer some of the questions I asked in a logical manner. All you've done is duck and evade.

Quote:

So your analogy wasn't meant as an actual argument?

Let me repeat to you what an argument is: An argument is a set of premises that logically connect to form a final statement or otherwise known as a conclusion. If I have to point out to you the difference between an argument and a series of statement then I'm afraid it is not me who is making the "mistakes" here.

Parados wrote:

You quoted me. Do you need someone to read it to you?

You see I'm still on the comment where you said "because humans don't own, manufacture or sell flies." And if you get a mosquito born illness, how do they know it's a mosquito from your backyard. Who will you prosecute Parados?

2 Replies

Why Governments Disarm Citizens

History shows without exception that governments are corruptible and over time become tyrannical. Americans must accept this as truth or they will never have freedom and liberty. History also provides examples of peoples disarmed by their governments.

Gun control was implemented for ‘reasonable’ purposes in :

Ottoman Turkey, 1915-1917, results : 1.5 million Armenians murdered
Soviet Union, 1929-1945, results : 20+ million civilians murdered * the number has recently been updated to include up to 60 million
Nazi Germany 1933-1945, results: 20 million civilians murdered
Nationalist China, 1927-1949, results: 10 million civilians murdered
Red China, 1949-1976, results: 35 – 60 million civilians murdered
Guatemala 1960-1981, results 200,000 civilians murdered
Uganda 1971-1979, results: 300,000 civilians murdered
Cambodia 1975-1979, results: 2 million civilians murdered
Rwanda 1994 , results 800,000 Tutsi people murdered
Source: “Death by Gun Control:The Human Cost of Victim Disarmament”, Aaron Zelman and Richard W. Stevens, Mazel Freedom Press, Inc (January 1, 2001), ISBN:0964230461

0 Replies

@Val Killmore,

Quote:

That is where you are wrong. You wouldn't call a program a reasoned measure after it failed to do what it was supposed to do. Especially if the failure by such a program is one of the biggest tragedy the nation faced by the hands of terror.

There you go implying that it's a failure if it isn't perfect enough to stop everything.

1 Reply

@Val Killmore,

Quote:

Regarding logical mistakes, you still haven't answer some of the questions I asked in a logical manner.

Which questions did you ask in that manner? The ones about flies? I don't see any other questions that I haven't answered.

Quote:

If I have to point out to you the difference between an argument and a series of statement then I'm afraid it is not me who is making the "mistakes" here.

If you want to argue that your series of statements was not related to your argument go ahead. I would love to see you do that.

Quote:

And if you get a mosquito born illness, how do they know it's a mosquito from your backyard. Who will you prosecute Parados?

There you go with the "it must be perfect" argument again Val. The goal is to reduce the risk, not eliminate it. As I said before a reasonable person would understand that.

1 Reply

@parados,

Parados wrote:

There you go implying that it's a failure if it isn't perfect enough to stop everything.

No that's is what you're putting in my mouth, if I have to point it out, like what, the third time?
Here I'll help you understand revelette's idiocy. Say I owned a strip of beach rental property infested with sharks, and say I'm very miserly, and buy a cheap ass shark net to keep the sharks out of the bay. Suffice to say there are weak spots in the cheap net that would easily allow the bigger of the species to easily break through the barrier with little hindrance. Would my word of mouth to my tenants saying that the waters are safe setup with "reasoned measures" to prevent shark bites, fair to say? In reality is this really a reasoned measure to prevent shark bites? Sure the net may stop the smaller invasive species but what about the bigger hunters?

1 Reply

@parados,

Parados wrote:

Which questions did you ask in that manner? The ones about flies? I don't see any other questions that I haven't answered.

Why do you believe that the AWB would prevent future tragedies by guns when the AWB in 1994 did no such thing?
If you think about it, a hand gun and a semiautomatic "assault" rifle, generally speaking, operate in the same manner: one trigger pull, one bullet out. The difference being that the "assault" rifles have differing aesthetics, aesthetics that of military machine guns. Added to the fact that hand guns, not "assault" rifles are used more to commit crimes and murders.

0 Replies

@Val Killmore,

Quote:

Would my word of mouth to my tenants saying that the waters are safe setup with "reasoned measures" to prevent shark bites, fair to say?

No, because the net isn't to prevent bites. It is to prevent sharks from entering the area. They are 2 different things. Sharks in the area don't equate to bites. Many beach areas around the world have sharks and no bites.

Quote:

In reality is this really a reasoned measure to prevent shark bites?

No, because you have failed to define your problem.

Quote:

Sure the net may stop the smaller invasive species but what about the bigger hunters?

Does that mean you will stop some species from entering the area? Since you haven't defined which species bite, you haven't defined the problem.

The only way that analogy would work is if the law was designed to keep muslims out of the US on the pretext that it would stop terrorism attacks. The law wasn't designed to do that so bad analogy.

1 Reply

@spendius,

Quote:

nd your obsession with our pistol team is starting to look like a hobby horse. I dare say that not one in 10,000 here could name a single member of our pistol team. It would not be missed if it vanished. Neither would the corrupt Olympic Games.

Just the idea that your government is so fearful if it citizens having firearms under any conditions that even your national pistol teams need to leave the UK to practice is amazing to me.

It is also amazing that the English people would allowed themselves to be treated in such an insulting manner by their own government.

An this is the kind of nonsense that you think that the American people is going to adopt?

Your nation had a wonderful past and there are a lot of things that still to be admire about your nation and your culture but your fear of your own people is not one of them.

Hell you have limits on the power of air guns.

3 Replies

@BillRM,

There really is a reason that legal gun ownership in the UK has been reduced almost to the vanishing point: people, history and culture - or the lack of the latter - make a big difference ...

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

Quote:

Yes, people, history and culture - or the lack of the latter - make a big difference ...

I hope you are keeping in mind, Walter, that Bill does not represent all of us. In fact, I doubt very much he represents most of us.

But yes, the "lack of" does matter.

0 Replies

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

Just the idea that your government is so fearful if it citizens having firearms under any conditions that even your national pistol teams need to leave the UK to practice is amazing to me.

Our government is scared of losing the election. Our citizens are fearful of our citizens having guns, or our police for that matter. We don't want any school massacres over here. If I didn't know what an idiot you were I'd be amazed that you're so sanguine about the slaughter of innocents.

Nobody gives a **** about the pistol team.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

I continue to respectfully disagree with you on that. I think the first amendment to our Constitution is not so inviolate that restrictions cannot reasonably be imposed...and I certainly do not think the second amendment is either.

Sorry such measures as the total ban of firearms that used technology that is a 140 years old or so and other such nonsense is in effect a total reversal of the second amendment and that is what have been suggested on this thread more then once

Now going back and dealing with less extreme limits so call assault rifles are no more deadly then most other modern rifles so a ban on them is not reasonable either by any logic I understand.

Magazines size limits have a more of a chance to be consider reasonable
however even there given how fast magazines can be traded out that is an open question.

0 Replies

@izzythepush,

Quote:

Nobody gives a **** about the pistol team.

I would have placed a "*******" in between the "the" and the "pistol" izzy. In aid of trying to pierce Bill's skull with how fruitless his hobby-horse is.

They should send the pistol team to Mali.

0 Replies

@BillRM,

Quote:

It is also amazing that the English people would allowed themselves to be treated in such an insulting manner by their own government.

Insulting, no. We don't want to murder our neighbours, and we don't want our neighbours to be able to murder us, so it's a bit of a no-brainer, really.

2 Replies

@McTag,

McTag wrote:

We don't want to murder our neighbours, and we don't want our neighbours to be able to murder us, so it's a bit of a no-brainer, really.

Neither do we, really.

0 Replies

Another major school shooting today ... Newtown, Conn

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know