Guest MormonGator Posted May 19, 2018 Report Share Posted May 19, 2018 Just now, Carborendum said: That's the main reason I'd be persuaded to NOT allow any restrictions. I'm understand that completely, believe me. The second amendment is sacred and we need to be very careful before we make any changes to it or restrict our legal rights to firearms. But people with your mental stability @Carborendum shouldn't be allowed a sharp stick. Much less a gun. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 19, 2018 Report Share Posted May 19, 2018 2 minutes ago, MormonGator said: I'm understand that completely, believe me. The second amendment is sacred and we need to be very careful before we make any changes to it or restrict our legal rights to firearms. But people with your mental stability @Carborendum shouldn't be allowed a sharp stick. Much less a gun. And, yet, I have an arsenal so I can be like Clint Eastwood. Yeah!!! ...Kidding. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grunt Posted May 19, 2018 Report Share Posted May 19, 2018 1 minute ago, MormonGator said: But people with your mental stability @Carborendum shouldn't be allowed a sharp stick. Much less a gun. And that's the main reason I don't support restrictions on firearms. If the person is so dangerous they can't own a firearm, remove them from society. If they are too dangerous for a firearm, they shouldn't own a sharp stick, automobile, or steak knife either. person0 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MormonGator Posted May 19, 2018 Report Share Posted May 19, 2018 Just now, Carborendum said: And, yet, I have an arsenal so I can be like Clint Eastwood. Yeah!!! ...Kidding. One of the many reasons we are all concerned about the safety of yourself and your family. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MormonGator Posted May 19, 2018 Report Share Posted May 19, 2018 Just now, Grunt said: And that's the main reason I don't support restrictions on firearms. If the person is so dangerous they can't own a firearm, remove them from society. If they are too dangerous for a firearm, they shouldn't own a sharp stick, automobile, or steak knife either. Like I said, I understand both sides. I understand the "we need to restrict firearm ownership from people like @Carborendum because they might be a danger to themselves or society" and the "no restrictions because the second amendment is sacred" argument. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lost Boy Posted May 19, 2018 Report Share Posted May 19, 2018 23 minutes ago, MormonGator said: I knew a few guys in karate who would act super tough and throw around "Oh yeah, I'd kick the butt of anyone who messed with me, I'm super tough." They were silly and stupid men, immature or trying to overcompensate for their own weaknesses and failures. I know of no gun owner who acts like that. None. But I'm sure you do. Unfortunately I do. In fact two of my friends. When they talk themselves up, I just nod. We are talking 50 year old men. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 19, 2018 Report Share Posted May 19, 2018 1 minute ago, MormonGator said: Like I said, I understand both sides. I understand the "we need to restrict firearm ownership from people like @Carborendum because they might be a danger to themselves or society" and the "no restrictions because the second amendment is sacred" argument. Well, that covers firearms, sticks, automobiles, and knives. But what about gator teeth? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MormonGator Posted May 19, 2018 Report Share Posted May 19, 2018 Just now, Carborendum said: Well, that covers firearms, sticks, automobiles, and knives. But what about gator teeth? We are the kings of the swamp old man. Don't come into the swamp and we won't have a problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grunt Posted May 19, 2018 Report Share Posted May 19, 2018 2 minutes ago, MormonGator said: Like I said, I understand both sides. I understand the "we need to restrict firearm ownership from people like @Carborendum because they might be a danger to themselves or society" and the "no restrictions because the second amendment is sacred" argument. Me too. My argument isn't even that the 2nd is sacred, though. It's WHY are we removing rights from citizens? What is the intent? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MormonGator Posted May 19, 2018 Report Share Posted May 19, 2018 Just now, Grunt said: Me too. My argument isn't even that the 2nd is sacred, though. It's WHY are we removing rights from citizens? What is the intent? The intent is to protect citizens. I think most anti gun people are good people who mean well, even if I don't agree with them. They can't grasp that simply restricting gun possession will do nothing, fundamentally because someone who wants a gun will not go the legal route to get one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostinwater Posted May 19, 2018 Report Share Posted May 19, 2018 (edited) 15 minutes ago, Carborendum said: Is that the same as the camel's nose in the tent? Moving the goalposts? That's the main reason I'd be persuaded to NOT allow any restrictions. Aren't we all in favor of some kind of restrictions? What those restrictions look like ranges an awful lot, but i'm struggling to think of anyone who supports removing every restriction about who can own a gun, what kind of gun that can be, and/or where that gun can be taken. Edited May 19, 2018 by lostinwater Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grunt Posted May 19, 2018 Report Share Posted May 19, 2018 Just now, MormonGator said: The intent is to protect citizens. I think most anti gun people are good people who mean well, even if I don't agree with them. They can't grasp that simply restricting gun possession will do nothing, fundamentally because someone who wants a gun will not go the legal route to get one. Exactly. Removing a single weapon from a dangerous person doesn't make people safer. If a person is so dangerous we have to remove inalienable rights, then it's the person that needs to be removed if the intent is to protect citizens. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MormonGator Posted May 19, 2018 Report Share Posted May 19, 2018 Just now, Grunt said: Exactly. Removing a single weapon from a dangerous person doesn't make people safer. If a person is so dangerous we have to remove inalienable rights, then it's the person that needs to be removed if the intent is to protect citizens. See? I'm not the whacked out liberal you think I am @Grunt 😉 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grunt Posted May 19, 2018 Report Share Posted May 19, 2018 1 minute ago, lostinwater said: Aren't we all in favor of some kind of restrictions? What those restrictions look like ranges an awful lot, but i'm struggling to think of anyone who supports removing every restriction about who can own a gun, what kind of gun that can be, and/or where that gun can be taken. I can't think of any restrictions I support. lostinwater 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grunt Posted May 19, 2018 Report Share Posted May 19, 2018 Just now, MormonGator said: See? I'm not the whacked out liberal you think I am @Grunt 😉 Debatable. mirkwood 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 19, 2018 Report Share Posted May 19, 2018 Just now, lostinwater said: Aren't we're all in favor of some kind of restrictions? What those restrictions look like ranges an awful lot, but i'm struggling to think of anyone who supports removing every restriction about who can own a gun, what kind of gun that can be, and/or where that gun can be taken. Depends on who you're including in "We're all..." Yes, I'm in favor of some restrictions. And we already have some reasonable ones. But the anti-gun world keeps pushing. So, that's why I'm against going any further. They've already pushed to get it this far. And they're continuing to push further. I'm ok with some of the restrictions we currently have. But I believe we ought to get rid of some as well. Yet I know some who believe individuals ought to be able to carry suitcase nukes if they so desire. That seems a bit of a stretch to me. But there are some people like that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MormonGator Posted May 19, 2018 Report Share Posted May 19, 2018 Just now, Grunt said: Debatable. Whacked out? Yes. Liberal? Well, " I only seem liberal because I believe that hurricanes are caused by high barometric pressure and not gay marriage.”-Aaron Sorkin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 19, 2018 Report Share Posted May 19, 2018 9 minutes ago, MormonGator said: We are the kings of the swamp old man. Don't come into the swamp and we won't have a problem. Who you callin' "old' kid! Just because I'm twice your age doesn't mean I'm not in my prime. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lost Boy Posted May 19, 2018 Report Share Posted May 19, 2018 1 hour ago, unixknight said: I think that's a huge oversimplification. You can take all the inner city schools and transform them into the greatest educational institutions in the world and it won't matter a whit to a kid who drops out because he's learned that selling dope on the street is easier and more lucrative to stay in school and get a high school diploma just so he can go out and find a minimum wage job. At the same time, know what the biggest predictor is of individual success? An intact family. A lot of these kids take the criminal path because they lack a father at home to teach them. Sure, moms try but a single parent is a single parent, and still has to work to feed the kids. Not to mention the race baiting that's going on, convincing youth that they're all victims and rather than empower them by encouraging them to go to school and improve their own lot, they're told to expect handouts in the name of "social justice." That's just 3 factors contributing to the problems in high crime areas th at have nothing whatsoever to do with the schools. I agree with you that education reform is needed, but it's not the magical elixir we wish it could be. You make it sound as if those who don't want to kill are in the minority. Is that your intention? It doesn't take the greatest educational institute, it takes someone who cares about the child from a young age. Make the class sizes smaller to around 10-12 kids. Make them go to school year round with a couple of 2-3 week vacations here and there. Keep the same teacher with the kids for several years. I would bet that the impact on the kids starting out in first grade going forward would be tremendous. Of course an intact family is best, but that is not what we have in inner city schools and saying that is the best doesn't resolve the issue. With no father in the picture and a mother that may not be there most of the time, the only adult that is going to have a meaningful impact on a student is the teacher. If the student is in a large class where the teacher changes every year, no one is going to care about that kid. You change the system like I suggest and now you have a dynamic that could actually change a students life for the better. Changing the school like I mentioned will also empower the students. Instead of feeling abandoned at school, they will know the teacher is there for them. The teacher will not just encourage them, but give them self confidence that they can succeed in school and in life. This type of program would cost a lot up front, but it would create working citizens that add to the government coffers instead of creating inmates that suck from the government coffers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MormonGator Posted May 19, 2018 Report Share Posted May 19, 2018 (edited) 4 minutes ago, Carborendum said: Who you callin' "old' kid! Just because I'm twice your age doesn't mean I'm not in my prime. twice my age? I wouldn't say @Carborendum is old, but when he was in grade school his teacher demanded that he learn the capitals of all 13 colonies. (that's a funny joke! Remind me to open with that one) Edited May 19, 2018 by MormonGator Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 19, 2018 Report Share Posted May 19, 2018 4 minutes ago, MormonGator said: twice my age? :: ahem :: try three times. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostinwater Posted May 19, 2018 Report Share Posted May 19, 2018 2 minutes ago, Carborendum said: Depends on who you're including in "We're all..." Yes, I'm in favor of some restrictions. And we already have some reasonable ones. But the anti-gun world keeps pushing. So, that's why I'm against going any further. They've already pushed to get it this far. And they're continuing to push further. I'm ok with some of the restrictions we currently have. But I believe we ought to get rid of some as well. Yet I know some who believe individuals ought to be able to carry suitcase nukes if they so desire. That seems a bit of a stretch to me. But there are some people like that. Thank-you Sir. Makes sense. i guess i just don't consider it an unreasonable argument that having dozens of school-age kids getting murdered by madmen who walk into schools with assault rifles is evidence that the perfect balance has not quite been achieved. And don't mistake - i was raised in as pro-gun a household as you'll find. i also think there are plenty who want to take the restrictions too far also. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 19, 2018 Report Share Posted May 19, 2018 (edited) 8 minutes ago, MormonGator said: twice my age? :: ahem :: try three times. But I guess this guy is too old? I think he could take you. Or this guy. Edited May 19, 2018 by Guest Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grunt Posted May 19, 2018 Report Share Posted May 19, 2018 Just now, lostinwater said: i guess i just don't consider it an unreasonable argument that having dozens of school-age kids getting murdered by madmen who walk into schools with assault rifles is evidence that the perfect balance has not quite been achieved. 2 You think gun regulations will stop that? person0 and mirkwood 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vort Posted May 19, 2018 Report Share Posted May 19, 2018 1 hour ago, 2ndRateMind said: So, it seems to me there are three concepts going on here, arranged in a hierarchy of goodness. The highest good is the security of the free State. The next highest good is a well regulated militia, which is justified by its necessity to the security of a free State. The final (or lowest) good is the right of the people to keep and bear arms, so far as that contributes to a well regulated militia, and so far as that militia contributes to the security of a free state. To construe the Second Amendment in this way has consequences: Behold the danger of Constitutional interpretation by someone who has no idea what the Constitution means, and likes to apply his own private definitions to public documents. "The militia" referred to all free, able-bodied men of fighting age. Today, that definition would doubtless be expanded to include women and to exclude certain violent criminals. But the fundamental meaning is the same, and it's not what you think it is. What do you suppose a "right" is, 2ndRateMind? Do you think a "right" is something granted by government? mirkwood 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.