rehmwa 2 #26 January 6, 2014 turtlespeedSo by your logic, they (Mentally ill) should be unprotected, and more likely to be harmed. Which leads one to the conclusion that "Sane" people are more important and worth more that the mentally ill. don't forget - the government will also decide they get to define what "sane" and "mentally ill" means. What? you don't believe in global warming - that's clearly insane? What? you don't think these social programs are any good? What? you didn't vote democrat (republican) - insane. obviously. for the children. (hyperbole? sure, but look at some of the posters here and tell me they wouldn't abuse that option in a second if they had power) ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
champu 1 #27 January 6, 2014 quadeNot a "trap." It's just that it's virtually impossible to have a conversation with absolutists on any topic; guns, abortion, gays, xenophobia, healthcare reform, socialism. You name the topic and once a person takes an absolutist position, there's no further discussion possible. Coming to an agreement that "a reasonable limit might exist somewhere" isn't very helpful when the bulk of people drafting the laws have no concern over what is reasonable and are only concerned with what they can get away with, often driven by fanciful imaginations and the movies. And they have a body of voters (yourself included) that believe there is no negative impact to them personally, and so regardless of what the politicians put out there, they can count on these peoples' support. Would you really be wiling to hear out a pro-lifer if he came along and said, "Well, we agree you can't just stab your offspring in the head a week after it's born, so we agree there's a limit on murdering babies?" Firearms and ammo are not psuedophedrine where you have this void between how much someone could potentially use in a reasonable quantity and how much you need to cook into meth, leaving a nice grassy meadow of compromise to make limits that we can all agree on. So most every line drawn in the gun control debate doesn't end up being a reasonable compromise like you imagine it to be, it ends up being a shot in the dark that doesn't even have a chance to accomplish it's stated purpose. Someone in the actual California legislature (not just some random person on the internet, people representing you in government) recently tried to ban the sale of more than 6000 rounds of ammunition to an individual per week. In a recent discussion of magazine capacity I posted a video demonstration created by a Sheriff's department showing how magazine limits don't really slow people down and you responded (forgive my paraphrasing), "Nah! whatever, it matters. Imagine what might have happened if John Hinckley had more rounds." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
flygirl1220 0 #28 January 6, 2014 quade I'm sorry. What number of people killed by a looney with a gun is acceptable to you? How high does the number have to be before it becomes unacceptable to you? In your mind, is three children acceptable or does it have to be 20 before it crosses that threshold? So do you think that all this talk of gun control will stop the killing of children? That by limiting rounds and guns and whatever else. That people will not find some other way to harm others? I will point out one of the worst school massacres in US history was not from a shooting... nah nah.... it was from a bombing. The Bath school bombing in 1927. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster Or maybe Oklahoma city which involved the daycare. But that is ok go ahead and climb on your soap box and shout gun control as if that will solve the problems of violence. Hopefully you realize the criminals don't follow the law. I would like to be able to continue to have the right to protect myself. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #29 January 6, 2014 quadeThe takeaway ought to be, different things work in different places and it's probably smarter to adopt different standards based on different locations. Cities like Los Angeles and New York are vastly different than Detroit or Billing, Montana. Anyone who thinks the same things will work in all locations is just being silly. Unfortunately, the groups like the NRA want a one-size-fits-all, absolutist interpretation of the Second. Gov of Alabama: "segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever!" As endorsed by Quade. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #30 January 6, 2014 kelpdiver***The takeaway ought to be, different things work in different places and it's probably smarter to adopt different standards based on different locations. Cities like Los Angeles and New York are vastly different than Detroit or Billing, Montana. Anyone who thinks the same things will work in all locations is just being silly. Unfortunately, the groups like the NRA want a one-size-fits-all, absolutist interpretation of the Second. Gov of Alabama: "segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever!" As endorsed by Quade. Oh, that's a knee slapper. You really ought to be a comedian.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #31 January 6, 2014 quade******The takeaway ought to be, different things work in different places and it's probably smarter to adopt different standards based on different locations. Cities like Los Angeles and New York are vastly different than Detroit or Billing, Montana. Anyone who thinks the same things will work in all locations is just being silly. Unfortunately, the groups like the NRA want a one-size-fits-all, absolutist interpretation of the Second. Gov of Alabama: "segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever!" As endorsed by Quade. Oh, that's a knee slapper. You really ought to be a comedian. hey...it's probably smarter to adopt different standards on constitutional rights in Alabama than it is in Detroit. They're vastly different places. Your words exactly - right here above mine. Say something really stupid - own it, man. BTW, I suspect Detroit and LA have more in common with each other than Portland, Maine, but I've never been to either of these Eastern cities. I do know the Bill of Rights applies to all 3, however. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #32 January 6, 2014 kelpdiverSay something really stupid - own it, man actually, he said one thing that was really smart - essentially, that things are different at level lower than the feds, and that the decision needs to be more local than that (yes, I was shocked to here that sentiment from that source). Quade fell down the trap of the assumption that "SOME level of government" needs to control the stupid masses that can't think for themselves. And then started dialogue about what level is appropriate. when the decision is acknowledged to be a personal decision, that's pretty much an individual right ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #33 January 7, 2014 rehmwa ***Say something really stupid - own it, man actually, he said one thing that was really smart - essentially, that things are different at level lower than the feds, and that the decision needs to be more local than that (yes, I was shocked to here that sentiment from that source). Quade fell down the trap of the assumption that "SOME level of government" needs to control the stupid masses that can't think for themselves. And then started dialogue about what level is appropriate. when the decision is acknowledged to be a personal decision, that's pretty much an individual right Actually, you are half right IMO. It's the assumption, and it doesn't stop there. It goes to the extent that we as a people are not as smart as him, and need to be told how to perform every little detail in our lives. It's more conceit, as opposed to "Good Will". But IO bet he thinks it IS good will.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bakerjan 0 #34 January 7, 2014 quadeThe takeaway ought to be, different things work in different places and it's probably smarter to adopt different standards based on different locations. Cities like Los Angeles and New York are vastly different than Detroit or Billing, Montana. Anyone who thinks the same things will work in all locations is just being silly. Unfortunately, the groups like the NRA USA Democrats want a one-size-fits-all, absolutist interpretation of the Second Common Core education policy and health insurance offerings. You say its unfortunate certain groups want a one size fits all for things you don't approve but you like the groups who want one size fits all for the things you approve, how does that work? Jan Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
