Gun rights victory today!

[Reverend Rick]

You should probably read my replies before replying. That way you can avoid being repetitive for no reason like this.

Have I missed something? In what post did you address this?

 

[Magic Man]

Oh, yeah....this kind of language will win friends & foster civil discussion.
Your problem is that you have no respect for those who disagree with you.
You are not as "right" as you think you are.

With the kind of comment I was responding to, there couldn't be any fostering of friends or civil discussion. It was an absurd comment that fits in with Fox News, not with reality. I have respect for those who disagree with me. I simply have no respect for stupid ideas. For instance, I have a lot of respect for Storm and Father Heathen, despite the fact that I disagree with them on a few things here.

Certainty is the mind killer.

What an awesome non sequitur.

 

[Magic Man]

Sure, however this has already been gone over. Pools and motorcycles have a purpose other than hurting something.

Here you go, Rick. I'm reposting just for you.

 

[Reverend Rick]

Yup. Never said I wasn't. Thanks for assuming, though.

Asking a question is an assumption? So let me get this straight, you demonise others for having the same trait as you? If I am assuming any thing at all, it would be the obvious hypocrisy of your position.

 

[Magic Man]

Asking a question is an assumption?

Please, stop. That's just plain dishonest. We all know that was an assumption in the form of a question. As in "But you're biased, aren't you?". Denying it now only looks worse.

So let me get this straight, you demonise others for having the same trait as you?

Nope. I'm not demonizing anyone. However, everyone has biases. Some admit them and don't let them get in their way, and others refuse to admit them and let them influence their opinions.

If I am assuming any thing at all, it would be the obvious hypocrisy of your position.

Well, then maybe you should stop assuming, since you're now 0 for 2.

 

[Reverend Rick]

Sure, however this has already been gone over. Pools and motorcycles have a purpose other than hurting something.

So collecting, target practice and competetion are not another purpose? Do you reallly believe people would purchase a 20,000 dollar skeet shotgun for hurting something?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

[/i]

So collecting, target practice and competetion are not another purpose? Do you reallly believe people would purchase a 20,000 dollar skeet shotgun for hurting something?

It hurts those poor clay pigeons.:yes:

 

[Magic Man]

[/i]

So collecting, target practice and competetion are not another purpose? Do you reallly believe people would purchase a 20,000 dollar skeet shotgun for hurting something?

Sorry, you're missing the point. Guns are made to fire bullets at things. That is their purpose. Motorcycles are made to carry people from one place to another quickly. When you harm someone or something with a motorcycle, that's a side effect. When you harm someone or something with a gun, that's the intended purpose of it.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

It hurts those poor clay pigeons.:yes:

... or in my case old TVs, cars, and the stuffed animals or melons sitting on top of them...

You haven't lived until you've cut down a tree with an AK-47.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

When you harm someone or something with a gun, that's the intended purpose of it.

I get the feeling that you're missing the point, though.

Many guns are made specifically for competition or recreational shooting. To harm someone with these guns goes against their intended purpose.

 

[Magic Man]

I get the feeling that you're missing the point, though.

Many guns are made specifically for competition or recreational shooting. To harm someone with these guns goes against their intended purpose.

The point of a gun is to shoot a bullet ridiculously fast into something. The point of a motorcycle is to transport a person somewhere much quicker than walking. Violence and harm is not inherent to the latter, while it is to the former.

 

[Reverend Rick]

The purpose of many guns are not to harm anyone. The purpose of others is self defence.

Yes, gun accidents happen just like pool drownings and motorcycle accidents, but that is not the intended purpose.

Matt, one last question. Do you have a problem with robbers and rapists getting shot?

 

[Magic Man]

The purpose of many guns are not to harm anyone.

What I said was the purpose of a gun is to harm something or someone.

Yes, gun accidents happen just like pool drownings and motorcycle accidents, but that is not the intended purpose.

The point is that shooting a gun at something is the entire point of the gun. Running into another car or motorcycle is not the purpose of the motorcycle.

Matt, one last question. Do you have a problem with robbers and rapists getting shot?

I'll answer that question if you explain why it's relevant at all.

 

[Storm]

To be fair, I haven't seen much rationality from the other side either here.

I think I've been pretty rational, despite your attempts to paint me as petulant.

 

[Magic Man]

I think I've been pretty rational, despite your attempts to paint me as petulant.

Sorry, love. You've been rational. I'm just tired of the "You're an idiot for not liking guns" type attitude. Not saying you've displayed that, but some others who are normally better than that have. There are good reasons to consider banning guns for civilians. Are they good enough to mean we should actually enforce a ban? Maybe, maybe not, but that's the debate. As soon as someone says "guns are stupid", they get jumped all over.

I think part of the problem is that people come from different areas. I live in Baltimore, where we have the highest murder rate in the country. I hear every day about murders with guns. On the other hand, you and others here don't have that where you live, and all you hear about guns is the responsible owners who like to go to the firing range. I agree that an all-out ban is probably not the way to go, but the fact that people here like guns so much also turns me off. The liberty argument just strikes me as "I don't care how dangerous it is, I want one". That's why I compare it to me wanting to drive really fast.

Again, it's not so much that i think guns should be banned. I just hate a lot of the arguments used to support the right to own them, and the perception that that is the only rational conclusion one could come to when faced with the "facts".

 

[Storm]

Sorry, love. You've been rational. I'm just tired of the "You're an idiot for not liking guns" type attitude. Not saying you've displayed that, but some others who are normally better than that have. There are good reasons to consider banning guns for civilians. Are they good enough to mean we should actually enforce a ban? Maybe, maybe not, but that's the debate. As soon as someone says "guns are stupid", they get jumped all over.

I think part of the problem is that people come from different areas. I live in Baltimore, where we have the highest murder rate in the country. I hear every day about murders with guns. On the other hand, you and others here don't have that where you live, and all you hear about guns is the responsible owners who like to go to the firing range. I agree that an all-out ban is probably not the way to go, but the fact that people here like guns so much also turns me off. The liberty argument just strikes me as "I don't care how dangerous it is, I want one". That's why I compare it to me wanting to drive really fast.

Again, it's not so much that i think guns should be banned. I just hate a lot of the arguments used to support the right to own them, and the perception that that is the only rational conclusion one could come to when faced with the "facts".

:hug:

We can all get a little strident, and of course we all think our position is correct.

Let's focus on one issue, though, shall we? The one point you've made that I thought was out-of-bounds was painting my prinicple of erring on the side of liberty as a petulant tantrum.

It's really not. It's one of the founding principles of our government, and a noble one in my book. If we throw it out, the entire Bill Of Rights gets undermined, not just the 2nd Amendment. You yourself have no problem applying it in any other issue I've seen you discuss. I mean, do you really want to live in a country where freedom is the positiion that must be justified?

So, why do you attempt to undermine it on this issue?

 

[Magic Man]

:hug:

We can all get a little strident, and of course we all think our position is correct.

Yup.

Let's focus on one issue, though, shall we? The one point you've made that I thought was out-of-bounds was painting my prinicple of erring on the side of liberty as a petulant tantrum.

It's really not. It's one of the founding principles of our government, and a noble one in my book. If we throw it out, the entire Bill Of Rights gets undermined, not just the 2nd Amendment. You yourself have no problem applying it in any other issue I've seen you discuss. I mean, do you really want to live in a country where freedom is the positiion that must be justified?

So, why do you attempt to undermine it on this issue?

Yes, we need to start from a position assuming everything's legal. I just don't think "Because I want one" is a valid argument for keeping guns legal. Whether or not that's what you've said, others here have said that. If it was framed more like the argument for drugs, "there's nothing inherently wrong with them", it would make more sense. But when I see people say "I want guns and you can't tell me I can't have them", that sounds more like a petulant child (to use your words).

It's like when a parent tells their child they can't have candy. If the child says "But I want some and you can't tell me I can't have it", then the parent is likely to continue to deny them. If the child says "But I've been good, and since I haven't had any in a week, there's nothing really wrong with it", the parent is much more likely to listen and agree to let them have some.

Just like with drugs, the counterargument to them being illegal is "it's up to the individual person if they want to hurt themselves" or something like that.

I'm really not trying to make myself the parent and others the kids here. I'm just saying that that particular argument doesn't work too well in my eyes.

 

[Storm]

Yes, we need to start from a position assuming everything's legal. I just don't think "Because I want one" is a valid argument for keeping guns legal. Whether or not that's what you've said, others here have said that. If it was framed more like the argument for drugs, "there's nothing inherently wrong with them", it would make more sense. But when I see people say "I want guns and you can't tell me I can't have them", that sounds more like a petulant child (to use your words).

It's like when a parent tells their child they can't have candy. If the child says "But I want some and you can't tell me I can't have it", then the parent is likely to continue to deny them. If the child says "But I've been good, and since I haven't had any in a week, there's nothing really wrong with it", the parent is much more likely to listen and agree to let them have some.

Just like with drugs, the counterargument to them being illegal is "it's up to the individual person if they want to hurt themselves" or something like that.

I'm really not trying to make myself the parent and others the kids here. I'm just saying that that particular argument doesn't work too well in my eyes.

But I said, over and over again, "freedom does not require justification, restrictions do." That's a far cry from "because I want one."

 

[Magic Man]

But I said, over and over again, "freedom does not require justification, restrictions do." That's a far cry from "because I want one."

Yes, I understand. And the restriction justification would be that they are so dangerous, and that they are involved in so much violence. I'm not saying it's sufficient justification, but my point is that there is an argument for their restriction.

 

[Storm]

Yes, I understand. And the restriction justification would be that they are so dangerous, and that they are involved in so much violence. I'm not saying it's sufficient justification, but my point is that there is an argument for their restriction.

OK, fair enough.

That said, it brings us back to the point that many gun owners never have cause for regret.