Only 1 shooting this week so far

[JollyRoger]

When you start harming and violating the rights of others, you start losing your own rights.
This isn't a new concept...

So you should be disarmed for wanting to harm and violate the 2nd Amendment rights of others? You whine about only having 10 shots out of one side of your mouth while advocating for zero shots out of the other.

 

[kochman]

So you should be disarmed for wanting to harm and violate the 2nd Amendment rights of others? You whine about only having 10 shots out of one side of your mouth while advocating for zero shots out of the other.

JR, I am not the one taking away 2nd Amendment rights, the government is, by social contract.
You're trying to trap me into something I am not going to be trapped in. Give it a rest, it is boring.
Or, continue... as you are free to do. Just don't expect further reply. I've humoured this innane line of questioning and vain attempts to outsmart me well more than I should have.

 

[Crezth]

When you start harming and violating the rights of others, you start losing your own rights.
This isn't a new concept...

What are "rights?" Does this include the silly contrivance that I can't use or consume something if you say I can't?

 

[JollyRoger]

And we are debating how far that the social contract allows the privilege to be infringed. I just do not want to hear whining about only 10 shots from an advocate of 0 shots - do not expect that to go unchallenged.

 

[kochman]

And we are debating how far that the social contract allows the privilege to be infringed. I just do not want to hear whining about only 10 shots from an advocate of 0 shots - do not expect that to go unchallenged.

Well, I guess you'll just be disappointed then, won't you.
Enjoy

 

[JollyRoger]

It's just funny seeing someone argue for a ceiling of 0 and then complaining about a ceiling of only 10.

 

[kochman]

Is it funny? Or does it bother you?
You're contradicting yourself now.

Not to mention... the difference between 10 and 0 is VERY obvious... the difference between 10 and 12 is nowhere near as stark.

With 0, you can't shoot anything...

 

[Farm Boy]

Is it funny? Or does it bother you?
You're contradicting yourself now.

Not to mention... the difference between 10 and 0 is VERY obvious... the difference between 10 and 12 is nowhere near as stark.

With 0, you can't shoot anything...

You have to pull out! Don't let JR dictate the details if you are making an argument on the totality of the situation. I've seen this game before.

Even the right of free speech can be subject to limitation in citizens who have done no criminal wrong. There are prohibitions regarding screaming fire, filing false police reports, etc and so forth. There can also exist, as the SCOTUS has decided, limitations on the right to possess the tools of lethal force while maintaining the basic right to own such tools. The loss of rights as a basis of criminal punishment is kinda a different game.

 

[kochman]

I know... it's really odd actually...
If a tax atty doesn't know the difference between 0 and 10 vs 10 and 12, that's pretty scary.

 

[BSmith1068]

There can also exist, as the SCOTUS has decided, limitations on the right to possess the tools of lethal force while maintaining the basic right to own such tools.

And that right there is all the justification you need to implement stronger gun controls.

 

[kochman]

And that right there is all the justification you need to implement stronger gun controls.

I don't think anyone has ever denied the legality of it (short of rebutting the "take all the evil guns away" crowd)...

 

[Farm Boy]

I know... it's really odd actually...
If a tax atty doesn't know the difference between 0 and 10 vs 10 and 12, that's pretty scary.

I would put heavy money on the fact that he does know the difference and that's he's very good at what he does. He seems to be burrowing for a "why" out of you. If your "why" is in the light of the totality you can't let the issue be framed in a bunch of separate little boxes.

 

[kochman]

I know, I was being tongue in cheek... I've seen this particular game too many times already.

 

[Farm Boy]

I know, I was being tongue in cheek... I've seen this particular game too many times already.

Well, what is your why then? We don't seem to be in doubt that stricter controls can be passed. We even seem to be in accord that perhaps some stricter controls should be passed. We have impassioned arguments for the almost total banning of firearms from our friends in Europe and some here at home. I know what my whys are for not agreeing with that stance, what are yours?

 

[kochman]

Well, what is your why then? We don't seem to be in doubt that stricter controls can be passed. We even seem to be in accord that perhaps some stricter controls should be passed. We have impassioned arguments for the almost total banning of firearms from our friends in Europe and some here at home. I know what my whys are for not agreeing with that stance, what are yours?

Why I oppose totally banning firearms?

 

[Farm Boy]

Why I oppose totally banning firearms?

Yes. We have an argument(s) on why allowing gun ownership is bad. Most people seeking limitations on firearm ownership rather than flat bans build the base of their argument off of the same basic premise. Why, within whatever reasonable restrictions you support, is allowing American citizens to own guns a good thing? I enjoy seeing how others reach the same general conclusions I do. It's often not for similar reasons.

 

[kochman]

Yes. We have an argument(s) on why allowing gun ownership is bad. Most people seeking limitations on firearm ownership rather than flat bans build the base of their argument off of the same basic premise. Why, within whatever reasonable restrictions you support, is allowing American citizens to own guns a good thing? I enjoy seeing how others reach the same general conclusions I do. It's often not for similar reasons.

Ok, many reasons... in order of why...
1) Home defense... I've said it a million times, when seconds matter, the police are only minutes away
2) Away from home defense... in particular for women to be able to defend themselves, they are too often turned into victims by men and pepper spray doesn't work
3) Hunting... for actual food... if you sport hunt for trophies I think it is despicable
4) Enjoyable hobby... target shooting, for me, #4 is a support function of 1, 2 and heaven forbid I ever need it for #3, #5, #6
5) Yes, the ability to fend off the government should they go haywire, as was the intent... however, in this day and age, it's pretty much pointless. If you become an enemy of the state, it's curtains for you.
6) Livestock protection... I don't need this, but some do

Off the top of my head, that's what is coming to mind...

 

[MobBoss]

Everyone deserves the right to defend themselves from home invasion.

But some can indeed lose their right to own a firearm to accomplish that (depending on state law).

Felons for example.

But is that where you would draw the line? Currently, most right wing states deprive people of the so-called right for even for relatively minor, non-violent offenses and also deprives law-abiding household members of the so-called right.

A 'right-wing' state might still have a democrat congress, or even a democrat governor. Your label of 'right-wing' is fairly meaningless given that context.

 

[Arwon]

2) They don't have the violent culture that the USA has

What does this mean?

 

[kochman]

We are a militaristic country with glorification of violence everywhere you look...