Ron 10 #226 July 15, 2009 QuoteIrony score 10/10 The irony of that coming from you: 12/10"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhaig 0 #227 July 15, 2009 someone pass me some popcorn... I like this show.-- Rob Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,162 #228 July 15, 2009 >And you have admitted to comparing having nuclear launch codes to an >individual owning a gun. Yes, just as you have admitted to comparing laws against swearing to "making people wear gags." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #229 July 16, 2009 QuoteYou can't argue the concept, so you argue the terminology? Why don't you tell ME what the equivalent term would be, then, so we can get past the usual semantics game bullshit. You're the one attempting to conjure up some imaginary difference. You tell me the proper term for it if you would like it to be addressed.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #230 July 16, 2009 QuoteThis thread fell to shit a while ago, so perhaps this reasoning of your's actually makes sense. Somehow it's still a freedom even if you'll be put in jail for a couple years for doing it. I believe it was Ron and Tom who made the claim initially. I agree that it's BS; I'm just following their claim to its logical end.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #231 July 16, 2009 QuoteOh, please... you didn't answer and now you are trying to act like anyone that didn't get you was not smart enough to get it. Maybe your explanation was just flat out poor, or you just didn't answer. [mnealtx] understood my point. What part do you not understand? QuoteAnd yet study after study shows that when people finally realize that their life is in danger, they act. When they have the means to fight back, they act faster. By that logic, we could hypothesize that they were unaware that their lives were in danger. It would be foolish to believe that a gun is the only feasible weapon that could be used by an average person against a box cutter. As I pointed out previously, there are many objects allowed on board that would make far more effective weapons than a box cutter. QuoteFallacy of false dilemma. You claim that there are only two options, when more exist. Either the will to fight lies within the person, or the will to fight lies within the gun. You seem to be arguing that guns are required before anyone could have the will to fight. I think that argument is bullshit. I think the will to fight lies with the person, and they will fight with whatever means at their disposal. QuoteAnd the fallacy of complex question. You think that answering either way will destroy my position... But you have tried to make it so I can only answer in one of your two ways. Au contraire. You think that things would have turned out differently if a passenger had had a gun. Why do you think that? Do you not believe that if someone is willing to commit an act of violence (justified or otherwise) that they will do so whether or not they have guns? QuoteBUT, when faced with a threat they will defend themselves. Right. They will defend themselves whether or not they have a gun. If they didn't defend themselves without a gun, there is no reason to believe they would have done so with a gun, either. QuoteWhen you attempt to tie that definition to a negative act it sure is. You described the negative act, not me. I merely offered the term used to describe the act. QuoteThe REAL definition of vigilante says nothing about ordinary citizens out to "neutralize threats". Quotea member of a volunteer committee organized to suppress and punish crime summarily (as when the processes of law are viewed as inadequate); broadly : a self-appointed doer of justice I paraphrased. QuoteYou are the one that brought up federal air marshals, cops, and Secret Service agents, not me. Quote If that were true, then FAM's would not be given guns. FFDO's would not be given guns. And the FFDO are pure self defense situations. FAM's and FFDO are not in the business of self defense. They are authorized to carry guns for the purpose of neutralizing threats. QuoteI do, it seems you don't. That comment is comical, at best, since it is you who keeps ignoring that the SCOTUS has explicitly stated that the right to bear arms is not an unlimited right. You seem to think that quoting founding fathers from their rhetorical attempts to build support for the adoption of the Constitution somehow gives your argument validation in spite of the explicit statements of the SCOTUS.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #232 July 16, 2009 QuoteQuoteYou can't argue the concept, so you argue the terminology? Why don't you tell ME what the equivalent term would be, then, so we can get past the usual semantics game bullshit. You're the one attempting to conjure up some imaginary difference. You tell me the proper term for it if you would like it to be addressed. Ok, so you admit that you WERE playing word games to avoid having to address the issue - no problem.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #233 July 16, 2009 QuoteOk, so you admit that you WERE playing word games to avoid having to address the issue - no problem. Nonsense. I'm just trying to figure out what it is that you're talking about.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #234 July 16, 2009 QuoteQuoteOk, so you admit that you WERE playing word games to avoid having to address the issue - no problem. Nonsense. I'm just trying to figure out what it is that you're talking about. If you can't figure it out from my posts, absent the two words you had such trouble with, I'm not going to bother explaining it yet again.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 3 #235 July 16, 2009 I'd like to thank some of you for turning this into your own personal "It's about me" thread. Kind of like wanking in public; but there you have it. OK, roll the credits... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #236 July 16, 2009 QuoteI'd like to thank some of you for turning this into your own personal "It's about me" thread. Kind of like wanking in public; but there you have it. OK, roll the credits... Starring.... Andy9o8 Fin.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #237 July 16, 2009 Quote Quote I'd like to thank some of you for turning this into your own personal "It's about me" thread. Kind of like wanking in public; but there you have it. OK, roll the credits... Starring.... Andy9o8 Fin. Nicely done! Nicely done indeed!"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 3 #238 July 17, 2009 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBzJGckMYO4&feature=related Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #239 July 17, 2009 Quote http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBzJGckMYO4&feature=related Cant get youtube here. But I will bet it is a good one "America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #240 July 19, 2009 QuoteYes, just as you have admitted to comparing laws against swearing to "making people wear gags." WRONG!!!! I made no comparison. I asked if you think that the right to free speech can be infringed at what level are you willing to infringe upon it. See, you are willing to deny a person the right to carry a weapon based on the damage he *could* do, not what he actually does, or has done in the past. Since a person could cause a problem when he exercises free speech... and since you are OK with limiting an individuals right, asking you how far you are willing to go in this case (To see if you are willing to go as far here as you are on the 2nd) is a valid line of questioning. It is not MY fault you are unwilling to answer and highlight how you hold a bias against only one of the Amendments."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #241 July 19, 2009 Quote What part do you not understand? How you claim to have already answeredMaybe you should read it again... since you clearly didn't understand it: "Oh, please... you didn't answer and now you are trying to act like anyone that didn't get you was not smart enough to get it. Maybe your explanation was just flat out poor, or you just didn't answer." Quote By that logic, we could hypothesize that they were unaware that their lives were in danger Nope, but nice try. Quote It would be foolish to believe that a gun is the only feasible weapon that could be used by an average person against a box cutter. And still the BEST weapon is a firearm. Quote As I pointed out previously, there are many objects allowed on board that would make far more effective weapons than a box cutter. And still the BEST weapon is a firearm. Quote Either the will to fight lies within the person, or the will to fight lies within the gun. Total BS. In a civilian situation you are not going to charge a machine gun with a toothpick. You might return fire if you had a pistol. If you have a chance, you are MUCH more likely to fight back. Quote That comment is comical, at best, since it is you who keeps ignoring that the SCOTUS has explicitly stated that the right to bear arms is not an unlimited right. The comedy is how you keep thinking that comment means that bans are OK."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #242 July 19, 2009 QuoteQuoteBy that logic, we could hypothesize that they were unaware that their lives were in danger Nope, but nice try. Since neither you nor I were there, we'll never know. QuoteAnd still the BEST weapon is a firearm. The best weapon is dictated by the situation and what's available. I own guns, but in most cases, they would not be my first choice for self defense. QuoteQuoteEither the will to fight lies within the person, or the will to fight lies within the gun. Total BS. In a civilian situation you are not going to charge a machine gun with a toothpick. You might return fire if you had a pistol. If you have a chance, you are MUCH more likely to fight back. Nice straw man you're trying to knock down. We're discussing a scenario in which the bad guys had box cutters not machine guns, remember? IMO, it's far more likely that the passengers were not aware that their lives were in danger (beyond the extent typical of any flight) than that 76 passengers and 11 crew members were all too intimidated to fight back against five people with box cutters. QuoteQuoteThat comment is comical, at best, since it is you who keeps ignoring that the SCOTUS has explicitly stated that the right to bear arms is not an unlimited right. The comedy is how you keep thinking that comment means that bans are OK. That's a pretty creative interpretation you have there. I never said or implied that bans are okay. I stated that the second amendment guarantees an individual right that is not unlimited. There is a HUGE difference.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,162 #243 July 20, 2009 >>Yes, just as you have admitted to comparing laws against swearing to >>"making people wear gags." >WRONG!!!! I made no comparison Ron: "So to prevent swearing, would you be OK with making people wear gags?" >See, you are willing to deny a person the right to carry a weapon based >on the damage he *could* do, not what he actually does, or has done in >the past. Yes. I am OK denying a person the right to own a thermonuclear warhead, or a thousand gallons of Sarin, or a few tons of weapons-grade plutonium, based solely on the damage he MIGHT do to the city he is living in. >Since a person could cause a problem when he exercises free speech... >and since you are OK with limiting an individuals right, asking you how far >you are willing to go in this case (To see if you are willing to go as far >here as you are on the 2nd) is a valid line of questioning. That is indeed a valid line of questioning. Revealing nuclear launch codes - I am OK limiting people's rights to free speech. Speaking out against global warming - I am not OK limiting people's rights to free speech. >It is not MY fault you are unwilling to answer and highlight how you >hold a bias against only one of the Amendments. You yourself have admitted that you are willing to disregard Amendments as long as you have a good reason. Sounds like you are only OK with it when you get to choose which amendments to ignore. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #244 July 20, 2009 QuoteRon: "So to prevent swearing, would you be OK with making people wear gags?" That was a question to you to see if you hold the same line across issues... It is pretty clear you don't QuoteYes. I am OK denying a person the right to own a thermonuclear warhead, or a thousand gallons of Sarin, or a few tons of weapons-grade plutonium, based solely on the damage he MIGHT do to the city he is living in. AND you are fine with denying a person the right to carry a simple handgun... Based on fear, not logic. I normally would expect better from you, but you have shown you only use logic when you feel like it. QuoteThat is indeed a valid line of questioning. Then you should actually answer it for once. QuoteYou yourself have admitted that you are willing to disregard Amendments as long as you have a good reason. Sounds like you are only OK with it when you get to choose which amendments to ignore. Nope, you don't really read my posts do you? I am for the right to carry personal arms... Just as the founding fathers intended, based on their writings. You want to compare nuclear weapons to personal weapons is just a distraction to prevent you from having to showcase your bias. And you STILL have not been able to produce one quote where the founding fathers were against ownership. Neither has Quade, Kallend, or any other person."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,162 #245 July 20, 2009 >AND you are fine with denying a person the right to carry a simple handgun . . . Nope, try again! >I am for the right to carry personal arms . . . Ah, now the qualifications come out. Good for you. You have admitted that it's not an unquestionable right, but rather one that can be interpreted by society. You decide that "personal arms" such as handguns are OK, but armaments like chemical weapons are not. And that's great! You have exercised common sense, and decided that although the language does not support your interpretation 100%, it's a reasonable compromise between what is written and what is practical. >And you STILL have not been able to produce one quote where the >founding fathers were against ownership. Neither have you! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #246 July 20, 2009 QuoteSince neither you nor I were there, we'll never know Yet you claim you do know... And the only evidence you have provided is your opinion. QuoteThe best weapon is dictated by the situation and what's available. The best IS dictated by the situation, but you want to eliminate certain choices for no reason. A belt may be the best you HAVE, but it is not the best choice. BIG difference. And you fail to take into account not only the lethality, but the training requirements. While SOME may be able to disarm a guy with a knife with their bare hands (and they are VERY likely to get cut).... MOST could win that fight if given a firearm. QuoteNice straw man you're trying to knock down. We're discussing a scenario in which the bad guys had box cutters not machine guns, remember? Not a strawman... You want to claim that the PERSON is all that counts, but not many true warriors would win with just a toothpick. QuoteIMO, it's far more likely that the passengers were not aware that their lives were in danger (beyond the extent typical of any flight) than that 76 passengers and 11 crew members were all too intimidated to fight back against five people with box cutters. And yet, if one of them was armed they would be MUCH more likely to fight back. Unarmed people don't normally start fighting against an armed opponent. And you should know that a cutting blade instills fear more than most other types of weapons. Quotethat the passengers were not aware that their lives were in danger Really? QuoteAccording to flight attendants Madeline Sweeney and Betty Ong, who contacted American Airlines during the hijacking, the hijackers had stabbed flight attendants Karen Martin and Barbara Arestegui and slashed the throat of passenger Daniel Lewin. Seems to me that any rational person would think their life was in danger. QuoteDuring a four-minute call to the American Airlines operations center, Ong provided information about lack of communication with the cockpit, lack of access to the cockpit, and passenger injuries So, you have at least three people stabbed, one with his throat cut NO communication from the hijackers.... I'd say most people would realize they were in danger."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #247 July 20, 2009 QuoteAh, now the qualifications come out. They were there all along... You just ignored them and went on about nuclear weapons. Quote>And you STILL have not been able to produce one quote where the >founding fathers were against ownership. Neither have you! I have provided quotes to back my position, you have failed to produce ONE shred of data to back yours."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,162 #248 July 20, 2009 >They were there all along... That was your first mention of the word "personal." If that's been your angle all along - that the ownership of SOME weapons is protected by the constitution - then we are in agreement. >I have provided quotes to back my position, you have failed to produce >ONE shred of data to back yours. My position is that sane, law abiding adults in the US have the right to carry personal weapons, subject to some limitations. Since it sounds like you agree with me, see any of your posts for data to back my position. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #249 July 21, 2009 QuoteQuoteThe best weapon is dictated by the situation and what's available. The best IS dictated by the situation, but you want to eliminate certain choices for no reason. Once again, you are jumping to incorrect conclusions about what I want. QuoteA belt may be the best you HAVE, but it is not the best choice. BIG difference. I've also got guns, but they are rarely my best option for self defense. QuoteAnd you fail to take into account not only the lethality, but the training requirements. While SOME may be able to disarm a guy with a knife with their bare hands (and they are VERY likely to get cut).... MOST could win that fight if given a firearm. BS. A gun is like any other weapon. It's of little help without proper training, especially in high stress situations. In fact, without proper training, it can be a liability, just like any other weapon wielded by an untrained user. QuoteNice straw man you're trying to knock down. We're discussing a scenario in which the bad guys had box cutters not machine guns, remember? Not a strawman... You want to claim that the PERSON is all that counts, but not many true warriors would win with just a toothpick. It was a strawman because you tried to compare the situation to one in which the bad guys had machine guns instead of box cutters. Box cutters are not an intimidating weapon to a "true warrior." QuoteQuoteIMO, it's far more likely that the passengers were not aware that their lives were in danger (beyond the extent typical of any flight) than that 76 passengers and 11 crew members were all too intimidated to fight back against five people with box cutters. And yet, if one of them was armed they would be MUCH more likely to fight back. Unarmed people don't normally start fighting against an armed opponent. They had access to much more dangerous weapons than box cutters. Do you really believe that one must have a firearm before being considered "armed?" QuoteAnd you should know that a cutting blade instills fear more than most other types of weapons. A cutting blade instills fear in you, perhaps. As I was trained, against an attacker with a knife, expect to be cut but avoid being stabbed. (Also avoid being cut, if at all possible, but don't be surprised if/when it happens.) Since a box cutter is a very, very poor stabbing weapon, I doubt it would instill much fear in anyone who would otherwise be willing to fight back. Quotethat the passengers were not aware that their lives were in danger QuoteSeems to me that any rational person would think their life was in danger. Fair enough. Yet, they still didn't do anything. If they knew their lives were in danger, why didn't they fight back? QuoteQuoteDuring a four-minute call to the American Airlines operations center, Ong provided information about lack of communication with the cockpit, lack of access to the cockpit, and passenger injuries So, you have at least three people stabbed, one with his throat cut NO communication from the hijackers.... I'd say most people would realize they were in danger. And, there's a likely answer to why they didn't do anything. They were without access to the cockpit. Doesn't seem like a situation in which a gun would have helped.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #250 July 22, 2009 Quote A cutting blade instills fear in you, perhaps. As I was trained, So are you Rambo? Or Master Lee"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
So are you Rambo? Or Master Lee
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites