posted
There AREN'T differences in culture in people from Deep Texas, anyone from Harlem or Brooklyn, someone from wherever you guys fish and a Pennsylvania Dutch dude?
No, no, I didn't say that there weren't different sub-cultures. I said that there IS a single, unifying culture, that overrides the differences.
------------------ "Omega is right." -Jeff Karrde, March 18, 2001 08:47 PM
posted
"You've never heard of people committing suicide with guns before, have you?"
People can commit suicide with a Tylenol overdose. Should we stop manufacturing them?
------------------ "Instructed by history and reflection, Julian was persuaded that, if the diseases of the body may sometimes be cured by salutary violence, neither steel nor fire can eradicate the erroneous opinions of the mind."
-Edward Gibbons, The Decline and Fall of The Roman Empire.
quote:People can commit suicide with a Tylenol overdose. Should we stop manufacturing them?
If you can come up with a way to make it hard(er) for a person to commit suicide with Tylenol, sure. Guns make suicide ridiculously easy.
------------------ Star Trek Gamma Quadrant Average Rated 8.32 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux (with seven eps posted) *** "Oh, yes, screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!" -Omega 11:48am, Jan. 19th, 2001
quote:No, no, I didn't say that there weren't different sub-cultures. I said that there IS a single, unifying culture, that overrides the differences.
Um. No there isn't. You want to explain what you think it is?
------------------ Star Trek Gamma Quadrant Average Rated 8.32 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux (with seven eps posted) *** "Oh, yes, screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!" -Omega 11:48am, Jan. 19th, 2001
------------------ "Instructed by history and reflection, Julian was persuaded that, if the diseases of the body may sometimes be cured by salutary violence, neither steel nor fire can eradicate the erroneous opinions of the mind."
-Edward Gibbons, The Decline and Fall of The Roman Empire.
------------------ Star Trek Gamma Quadrant Average Rated 8.32 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux (with seven eps posted) *** "Oh, yes, screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!" -Omega 11:48am, Jan. 19th, 2001
posted
This isn't a jab at "He-who-I will-not-name". Just some random streams of consciousness.
"There are MAJOR major differences between us and the USSR."
That's true.
"There is a single, unifying American culture, as opposed to the smaller states having been conquored by the biggest one and assimilated."
The only thing holding this country together is the almighty dollar. BTW, ever been to Miami?
"We choose our leaders freely, instead of having them foisted upon us by the ruling elite."
*yawn* I voted for John Sheridan and Delenn. (SERIOUSLY!)
"We have basic guarentees of freedom, poachers like JK aside. We are NOTHING like the Soviets, nor will we be."
Basic? Why not MORE? We're supposed to be a democracy. Oh. I forgot. We're not a democracy, we're a Federal Republic.
- Personal, I couldn't give a rat fuck about gun control, abortion, rights for this group, that group...whatever. This country is so beyond help that the fact it HASN'T exploded into another Yugoslavia borders on the ludicrious.
So i'm tossing my hat the ring for supporting First for dictator. The country's yours. Enjoy.
------------------ In this crazy world of lemons, baby...you're lemonade!
You've never heard of people committing suicide with guns before, have you?
The rule doesn't apply if the tool's intended by its user to do harm to same.
I'm sure there's some way that a pressure sensor could be created which would keep the gun unlocked.
Any particular engineering reason why you're so sure?
Perhaps some sort of "button" on the front of the gun-handle, where you would be gripping anyway instead of integrated into the handle itself?
You'd still need some way to have it unlocked immediately in an emergency situation. You have two contradictory goals: you want to prevent a gun from being fired by a child; you must ensure that this does not compromise the instantaneous defensive use of a weapon if necessary. Your goals are mutually exclusive at our current level of technology. We can't build guns that read minds. If you COULD, then I'd be all for it, but again, I deal in reality, not hypotheticals.
And if they can build space shuttles and airplanes and weapons that can destroy the world ... what's so friggin' difficult about a pressure sensor?!?!
Completely seperate technologies and unreasonable requirements, perhaps?
what the lock's purpose would be is to prevent an accidental mis-fire, or prevent the firing if the person is incapable of working the gun: aka, drunk
Purpose is irrelevant. EFFECT is relevant.
Omega, you've been shown to be wrong ... how many times?
By you? One, on the ACLU, and I admitted it immediately. You've been shown wrong... how many dozen times now? And you have yet to admit a single one.
how can you take guns away from people who've done their time without REGULATING that right?
A) Even in your flawed "reading", the right isn't regulated. The militia is.
B) A criminal has no rights to regulate.
Now are you going to respond to all my points to which you made this response? WITHOUT changing the subject, this time? They include the following:
1) The second ammendment gives no power to the government whatsoever. It RESTRICTS the government, as does the rest of the Bill of Rights.
2) You make the first statement law, even though your interpretation directly contradicts the second statement. But see, the first statement ISN'T law. It's a statement of fact, but it doesn't say a frikin' THING about the powers of the government. It therefore does not grant any such powers.
Me: "A well-regulated militia is necessary for the security of a free state." "Therefore, no government may abridge the right of the people to keep and bear arms."
You: That's not what it says.
What changed in my rewording? What of the meaning is different? The words are different, but the meaning is the same. Therefore, yes, that IS what it says.
No I didn't [admit that the Supreme Court has been actively rewriting the Constitution.]
Funny...
thanks to Ammendments and the interpretations of the Supreme Court, the Constitution has changed as well
Looks like it to me.
Well, a trigger-lock his son couldn't have opened probably would have helped.
Even though any trigger lock that tough would have eliminated the gun as a useful tool for legitimate purposes.
And if you think there's any such thing as a security device that a fifteen-year-old can't get past that his parents can, you don't know fifteen-year-olds.
That Lincoln fella', bringing Big Government to squash the rights of them' states like that.
What? The non-existant right to seceed? The federal government has the right to use federal troops to put down insurrections, remember?
I beg your fucking pardon?
As well you should.
we never executed our own citizens (Ohio State)
If you don't see the difference between actions ordered by the government, and unauthorized actions by officers of that goverment, then you, sir, are a total moron.
Oh, wait, I guess you saw that mistake and edited it out of your post. Oh, well. You're still a total moron.
I'll refrain from giving you a verbal lashing because, as JeffRaven points out to me often, "[Omega is] just a kid" and you've got a lot to learn.
*L*
Riiiight. Listen, buddy, I know more about this country, about human nature, about logic, about history, about freedom than you ever will. I'm more mature, more rational, more intelligent, more grounded in reality, and more arrogant about it all than you have the capacity to comprehend. You're no match for me. You have YET to make a real point against my beliefs. If the government's going to "regulate" ANYTHING outside of its Constitutional powers, it should be the very existance of people like you.
I want devices to prevent accidental shootings
Design one.
I want parents to educate their children about firearms
So do I. Care to try and legislate it?
But I live in the real world
You just get funnier and funnier.
you must understand that nearly everything you say, I laugh at
Oh, is THAT why you can never type a comprehensible response?
------------------ "Omega is right." -Jeff Karrde, March 18, 2001 08:47 PM
posted
I'm sure there's some way that a pressure sensor could be created which would keep the gun unlocked
Marx was sure he could create a communist utopia. Marx knew nothing about human nature. You're sure that a viable trigger lock mechanism with the desired characteristics could be created. You know nothing about engineering. The fact that you're "sure" about something of which you know nothing instills me with no confidence whatsoever, nor should it you.
if they can build space shuttles and airplanes and weapons that can destroy the world ... what's so friggin' difficult about a pressure sensor?!?!
A) They're completely different technologies.
B) You have mutually exclusive requirements at our current level of advancement. You want a gun that certain people can't use regardless of the responsibility level of the owner, and yet you want this device to not interfere with the defensive use of the gun. This is not possible at present, nor will it be in the forseeable future.
the lock's purpose would be is to prevent an accidental mis-fire, or prevent the firing if the person is incapable of working the gun: aka, drunk
Purpose is irrelevant. EFFECT is relevant.
Omega, you've been shown to be wrong ... how many times?
By you? One, on the ACLU, but then, I was only wrong by the usual definition of liberal, not your definition, so I don't know you'd count that.
You've contradicted yourself ... how many times?
Zero, if you're mind's advanced enough to comprehend my statements, and if you bother to pay attention.
how can you take guns away from people who've done their time without REGULATING that right?
A) WHAT RIGHT? Criminals HAVE no rights.
B) Even in your screwed up little world where you only have to read one word of the ammendment, the right isn't regulated. The militia is.
C) You have yet to respond to the following point:
"The second ammendment gives no power to the government whatsoever. It RESTRICTS the government, as does the rest of the Bill of Rights."
Me: "A well-regulated militia is necessary for the security of a free state." "Therefore, no government may abridge the right of the people to keep and bear arms."
That's not what it says.
You're right. It says: "A well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Now if you can tell me how this is qualitatively different from what I said above, you may have a point. But you can't, so you won't, so you don't.
You have yet to respond to the following point:
"You make the first statement law, even though your interpretation directly contradicts the second statement. But see, the first statement ISN'T law. It's a statement of fact, but it doesn't say a frikin' THING about the powers of the government. It therefore does not grant any such powers."
No I didn't [admit that the Supreme Court has been actively rewriting the Constitution].
Funny...
thanks to Ammendments and the interpretations of the Supreme Court, the Constitution has changed
Looks like you did to me.
Well, a trigger-lock his son couldn't have opened probably would have helped.
The man was irresponsible enough to leave the gun where his kid could get to it. The man was irresponsible enough NOT to teach his kid the proper respect for a gun. His irresponsibility would have prevented him from locking the gun. And if you think there's such a security device that parent could open that a fifteen-year-old couldn't override, you don't know fifteen-year-olds.
That Lincoln fella', bringing Big Government to squash the rights of them' states like that.
What, like the non-existant right to seceed?
I beg your fucking pardon?
As well you should.
I'll refrain from giving you a verbal lashing because, as JeffRaven points out to me often, "[Omega is] just a kid" and you've got a lot to learn.
Whatever gets you through the night, kid.
I want devices to prevent accidental shootings
If you can come up with a design (heck, even a description) for one that doesn't compromise the use of the gun, please tell me.
I want parents to educate their children about firearms
Care to try and legislate that?
you must understand that nearly everything you say, I laugh at.
Oh, is THAT why you can't form a coherant response?
------------------ "Omega is right." -Jeff Karrde, March 18, 2001 08:47 PM
posted
I'm sure there's some way that a pressure sensor could be created which would keep the gun unlocked
Marx was sure he could create a communist utopia. Marx knew nothing about human nature. You're sure that a viable trigger lock mechanism with the desired characteristics could be created. You know nothing about engineering. The fact that you're "sure" about something of which you know nothing instills me with no confidence.
if they can build space shuttles and airplanes and weapons that can destroy the world ... what's so friggin' difficult about a pressure sensor?!?!
A) They're completely different technologies.
B) You have mutually exclusive requirements at our current level of advancement. You want a gun that certain people can't use regardless of the responsibility level of the owner, and yet you want this device to not interfere with the defensive use of the gun. This is not possible at present, nor will it be in the forseeable future.
the lock's purpose would be is to prevent an accidental mis-fire, or prevent the firing if the person is incapable of working the gun: aka, drunk
Purpose is irrelevant. EFFECT is relevant.
Omega, you've been shown to be wrong ... how many times?
By you? One, on the ACLU, but then, I was only wrong by the usual definition of liberal, not your definition, so I don't know you'd count that.
You've contradicted yourself ... how many times?
Zero, if you're mind's advanced enough to comprehend my statements, and if you bother to pay attention.
how can you take guns away from people who've done their time without REGULATING that right?
A) WHAT RIGHT? Criminals HAVE no rights.
B) Even in your screwed up little world where you only have to read one word of the ammendment, the right isn't regulated. The militia is.
C) You have yet to respond to the following point:
"The second ammendment gives no power to the government whatsoever. It RESTRICTS the government, as does the rest of the Bill of Rights."
Me: "A well-regulated militia is necessary for the security of a free state." "Therefore, no government may abridge the right of the people to keep and bear arms."
That's not what it says.
You're right. It says: "A well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Now if you can tell me how this is qualitatively different from what I said above, you may have a point. But you can't, so you won't, so you don't.
You have yet to respond to the following point:
"You make the first statement law, even though your interpretation directly contradicts the second statement. But see, the first statement ISN'T law. It's a statement of fact, but it doesn't say a frikin' THING about the powers of the government. It therefore does not grant any such powers."
No I didn't [admit that the Supreme Court has been actively rewriting the Constitution].
Funny...
thanks to Ammendments and the interpretations of the Supreme Court, the Constitution has changed
Looks like you did to me.
Well, a trigger-lock his son couldn't have opened probably would have helped.
The man was irresponsible enough to leave the gun where his kid could get to it. The man was irresponsible enough NOT to teach his kid the proper respect for a gun. His irresponsibility would have prevented him from locking the gun. And if you think there's such a security device that parent could open that a fifteen-year-old couldn't override, you don't know fifteen-year-olds.
That Lincoln fella', bringing Big Government to squash the rights of them' states like that.
What, like the non-existant right to seceed?
I beg your fucking pardon?
As well you should.
I'll refrain from giving you a verbal lashing because, as JeffRaven points out to me often, "[Omega is] just a kid" and you've got a lot to learn.
Whatever gets you through the night, kid.
I want devices to prevent accidental shootings
If you can come up with a design for one, please tell me.
I want parents to educate their children about firearms
Care to try and legislate that?
you must understand that nearly everything you say, I laugh at.
Oh, is THAT why you can't form a coherant response?
------------------ "Omega is right." -Jeff Karrde, March 18, 2001 08:47 PM
posted
What's going on? I could only see Omega's multi-post after I had deleted my own.
------------------ "Instructed by history and reflection, Julian was persuaded that, if the diseases of the body may sometimes be cured by salutary violence, neither steel nor fire can eradicate the erroneous opinions of the mind."
-Edward Gibbons, The Decline and Fall of The Roman Empire.