piper17 1
Recommended Posts
QuoteIt is about all of it since corporate America is made up of companies that support the industries and by most accepted economic standards $5 billion is not small. And the $5 billion only represents the direct sales and not the companies or industry economic impact as a whole.QuoteOh. So now it's about companies... not industries? Nice segue.
THere's a huge difference between industries with sales of $5 billion and companies with the same. The former are relatively insignificant, while the latter are quite siginificant.
Interchanging one for the other is like comparing bushels from an apple tree to a single apple.
QuoteGuns cause cancer and other health issues? I seem to forget, which constitutional amendment was it that addresses the tobacco industry?QuoteJust look at how the rights of tobacco smokers have changed over the last 40 years, to see what the pro-gun people fear.
Way to miss the point.
mnealtx 0
QuoteDon't know where you are getting your facts but every state that has enacted concealed carry has experienced a reduction in violent crime.
Of course, we do have a problem with illegal aliens killing American citizens. Now, if we could just get the politicians to do something about that problem!
Not EXACTLY true - there HAS been an increase in violent crime, a 1.1% increase between 2004-2005 (source: UCR). Where John's argument becomes disingenuous is that he tries to use a national trend to show that gun-banning states are safer than states that allow concealed carry.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
DaVinci 0
QuoteShould a citizen be allowed to own chemical weapons to protect themselves from an invading force, or a rogue government?
How about nuclear weapons?
How about RPGs or mines?
What about jet planes with laser guided missiles?
How about short range missiles to protect your neighbourhood from a rogue government?
Don't you think your average citizen should be able to own all those? If not, why not?
Since people should not be allowed to own a personal nuke, they should not be allowed to own a gun?
Bad logic right there.
As for the constitution it states "to form a militia." A normal militia would not include jets, mines, or nukes. In fact having been a soldier in the US I never used a nuke, a jet with laser quided bombs, nor a landmine.
SkyDekker 1,465
QuoteSince people should not be allowed to own a personal nuke, they should not be allowed to own a gun?
Nope, I would argue the other way around, based on your constitution.
QuoteAs for the constitution it states "to form a militia." A normal militia would not include jets, mines, or nukes. In fact having been a soldier in the US I never used a nuke, a jet with laser quided bombs, nor a landmine.
But your armed forces certainly have, are they not a normal militia? Since this right in your consititution was specifically included to deal with the government, would it not naturally flow that the second amendmend guarantees the people the right to arm themselves the same way the nation's armed forces arm themselves? Especially since the head of the government is also the head of the armed forces.
I agree, I am glad that you understand.QuoteTHere's a huge difference between industries with sales of $5 billion and companies with the same. The former are relatively insignificant, while the latter are quite significant.
And while that can be true it is irrelevant as I was making multiple points and not a single point on a single issue.QuoteInterchanging one for the other is like comparing bushels from an apple tree to a single apple.
Maybe I didn't, maybe you missed mine.QuoteWay to miss the point.
You should quit thinking so two dimensionally and think that everything is about your points and that someone else is incapable of taking it to another level.
And to be honest I could care less, it was just a thread to play with. By the way I like people that show such confidence that they hide behind fictitious screen names with empty profiles. Tells you a lot about a person.
Stay safe
Time and pressure will always show you who a person really is!
Douva 0
I think it should be noted that most of Richards's comments have been made in a "devil's advocate" sort of way. We have to remember that there is a difference between somebody asking WHY we need something and somebody telling us we DON'T need something. Granted, he seems to think that the arguments he's presented are stronger than they are and that some of the requests of the gun lobby are more reasonable than they are, but nonetheless, I don't think he's trying to pretend anything he's not, which is basically a fence sitter. It's our job to INFORM the fence sitters, not berate them.
I can remember as a teenager thinking that the assault weapons ban seemed like a reasonable compromise. After all, why does anyone need an assault weapon? It wasn't until years later that I learned what a joke that ban really was. When I was young, my only exposure to guns had been through hunting, so I didn't have any background in those types of weapons on which to base my position. It wasn't that I thought they were machine guns--I knew better than that--I simply bought into the hype that they were dangerous killing tools used only by inner city gangs. Years later, I got more interested in owning firearms for both defense and target shooting, and I quickly learned the truth. We have to stop getting angry at people for being uninformed, when we know for a fact that it's our opposition's goal to spread this disinformation. Many of our opponents spread this misinformation not knowing it is misinformation, but the spreading of it is still their goal.
Also, I'm pretty sure that Kallend was using the statement about crime rising since the introduction of concealed handgun licenses to point out how statistics can be misused to draw false conclusions. Yes, crime has gone down in states where CHL's have been introduced. Yes, holders of CHL's are less likely to commit violent crimes than the general public. Yes, violent crime in America has still risen, as a whole. So what can you conclude from all that? Nothing.
I can remember as a teenager thinking that the assault weapons ban seemed like a reasonable compromise. After all, why does anyone need an assault weapon? It wasn't until years later that I learned what a joke that ban really was. When I was young, my only exposure to guns had been through hunting, so I didn't have any background in those types of weapons on which to base my position. It wasn't that I thought they were machine guns--I knew better than that--I simply bought into the hype that they were dangerous killing tools used only by inner city gangs. Years later, I got more interested in owning firearms for both defense and target shooting, and I quickly learned the truth. We have to stop getting angry at people for being uninformed, when we know for a fact that it's our opposition's goal to spread this disinformation. Many of our opponents spread this misinformation not knowing it is misinformation, but the spreading of it is still their goal.
Also, I'm pretty sure that Kallend was using the statement about crime rising since the introduction of concealed handgun licenses to point out how statistics can be misused to draw false conclusions. Yes, crime has gone down in states where CHL's have been introduced. Yes, holders of CHL's are less likely to commit violent crimes than the general public. Yes, violent crime in America has still risen, as a whole. So what can you conclude from all that? Nothing.
I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.
JohnRich 4
QuoteQuoteWhy only "collectors"? What is a collector?
Someone who collects.
Sorry, that's not good enough. It was your idea to ban "assault weapons" to all but collectors, and now you don't even have a decent definition for what that means. This would seem to reveal that you haven't put much thought into your idea. And if you haven't thought about it enough to come up with a basic definition, then that's not saying much for the credibility of your idea.
How many guns do I have to own before I'm a "collector"?
What type of guns do I have to acquire to be a "collector"?
If I collect .22 handguns, how does that make me more qualified to own an "assault weapon" than someone else?
Why is a "collector" more trustworthy to own an "assault weapon", than a non-collector?
JohnRich 4
QuoteQuoteI shoot a so-called "assault weapon", an AR15, monthly in shooting competition, at 200, 300 and 600 yards, at paper targets. Does this scare you?
You started off articulating your point and then you had to resort back to "Does this scare you" You are at least starting to sound like you would rather a discussion than a fight.
You didn't answer the question.
QuoteQuoteAnd you're suggesting what? That gun owners should just lay down and surrender to the gun-control folks?
Straw man
You didn't answer the question.
Is that all you've got left - being evasive and giving non-answers? That doesn't say much for your position...
kbordson 8
Are you trying to say that this is a complex issue with lots of room for education and intellectual growth?! 
(sorry... the sarcasm just kinda slipped out
)
(sorry... the sarcasm just kinda slipped out
)
JohnRich 4
Quoteyou still cannot seem to see that I have never stated that I liked the idea of such a ban. Can you please show me a quote of my own words where I stated that assault rifles should be banned? I seem to be having these words repeatedly put in my mouth...
Your words have not been limited to just assault rifles. Here's a collection of your quotes that could lead someone to believe that you are anti-gun, and that you would like to see a ban on numerous types of firearms:
Msg #3: "the pro-gun lobby is also driven by fear. The conspiracy theories that pro-gun types spew out reek of paranoia."
Msg #32: "I simply cannot help but notice a tendency towrds paranoia by the most vocal gun advocates... I think any credibility the NRA might have once had as a legitimate sporting organization has been lost, due to the political fanatics who now seem to represent it."
Msg #35: "It would also do them (gun owners) well to show some flexibility with respect to gun laws. Why do so many gun advocates get upset when a state tries to ban military style firearms? Many non-gun owners have no problem with the guy who wants to own a shotgun or hunting rifle, and they may not even have a problem with the idea of pistols or concealed carry laws, but when you read about people who own an assortment of AK-47's, AR-15's and G3's that tends to fuel thier concerns about the pro-gun community."
Msg #38: "there was a thread on this site about California banning the 50 cal sniper rifle. How someone could possibly protest that is beyond me. For that matter how could such a thing be legal in the first place?"
Msg #88: "I think asault style weapons... My argument nonetheless was why were the NRA so opposed to the banning of them... I merely wanted to portray the extremity of the NRA... I just feel that occasionally the NRA would do well to at least be flexible."
Msg #89: "I just think that since everything in life involves cmpromise why not meet in the middle with the anti-gun crowd and allow some restriction on weapons that have no real hunting value? "
Msg #90: "I think the issue is with high volume semi-autos... if the two columbine guys had been using bolt action rifles that hold five rounds there might have been more survivors. Does a bolt action that holds five rounds not suffice for hunting and target shooting?"
Msg #91: "I think the issue is not so much the look but the capacity. Can someone not shoot a .556 rife in bolt action for the same ranges? ...I think the pro-gun side would gain brownie points by showing a litle flexibility."
Msg #95: "My concern is that people got so bent out of shape when someone tried to ban it. While I like shooting there are more pressing concerns in my world than someone trying to ban a 50 cal sniper rifle... I am simply saying that if someone bans them I will not lose much sleep over it."
Msg #111: "You cannot tell me that semi-auto assault rifles are not more effective for violence than bolt actions. If that were the case our troops (not just snipers) would go into battle with bolt actions and pump shotguns."
Msg #147: "on assault rifles... I really have nothing against the idea of a collector owning these firearms. Do we need assault rifles... I don't know. In fairness, I see no reason why a guy who likes to colect firearms will become a criminal, but then the issue may become one of storage or accessability. Do we need a more stringent liscencing requirement? What will the laws on storage be? At some point people need to address the fact that a chunk of the voting population are for gun control so it might be better not to respond by drawing battle lines."
Msg #148: "I still doubt that anyone needs an assault rifle..."
Msg #200: "In light of all the hype against these assault rifles I felt that it was reasonable to ask "would it be the end of the world if we made that concession. I was curious as to why it would be the end of the world if we couldn't own a 50 cal."
QuoteNot EXACTLY true - there HAS been an increase in violent crime, a 1.1% increase between 2004-2005 (source: UCR). Where John's argument becomes disingenuous is that he tries to use a national trend to show that gun-banning states are safer than states that allow concealed carry.
It's rather amazing that he thinks 1.1% changes of any sort can support an argument. Or that Chicago's drop is actually worth being proud about given that it's still last or next to last in the country.
Personally I think that most of the drop seen in the 90s had little to do with the CCWs and more to do with age demographics (baby bust in the young men cohort) and the mostly positive economy. And now some of that is gone, so the cycle reverses.
In any event, it's clear beyond any remotely plausible doubt that the CCW permits did not increase crime as the opponents proclaimed. No real life version of Hollywood's Wild West emerged.
QuoteAs for the constitution it states "to form a militia."
which section are you quoting?
DaVinci 0
Quotewhich section are you quoting?
Not quoting, paraphrasing.
QuoteA 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.
It says that since a militia is needed to secure a free country that the people will be permitted weapons.
DaVinci 0
QuoteQuote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since people should not be allowed to own a personal nuke, they should not be allowed to own a gun?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nope, I would argue the other way around, based on your constitution.
A normal unit will not have a nuke.
QuoteBut your armed forces certainly have, are they not a normal militia?
No. A regular unit will not have access to nuclear arms. I could not get one to use, and was not trainined to use them.
QuoteSince this right in your consititution was specifically included to deal with the government, would it not naturally flow that the second amendmend guarantees the people the right to arm themselves the same way the nation's armed forces arm themselves? Especially since the head of the government is also the head of the armed forces.
It could be argued that way. I can easily see your point. But most normal units will never be near a nuclear weapon, much less use one.
Quote
Not quoting, paraphrasing.
Single quote marks are appropriate for that. Double quotes means it is a quotation, word for word.
Quote
It says that since a militia is needed to secure a free country that the people will be permitted weapons.
No, it says their right to own weapons will not be abridged. The right was a given, the 2nd Amendment only confirms it. That's an important distinction.
Of course, we do have a problem with illegal aliens killing American citizens. Now, if we could just get the politicians to do something about that problem!
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites