We Remember The Magic Café We Remember
Username:
Password:
[ Lost Password ]
  [ Forgot Username ]
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » Anti Gun...check this out.. (0 Likes) Printer Friendly Version

 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3~4~5~6~7~8 [Next]
gdw
View Profile
Inner circle
4817 Posts

Profile of gdw
I agree with woland, though, with regards to "shall issue," I just say you shouldn't even have to ask.

If the policy is that they have to issue to anyone that asks, what's the point in having to issue at all?

What purpose does the formality of asking for permission serve besides reinforcing subservience?

You don't ask permission to exercise a right.
It's amazing, people will criticize you for "biting the hand that feeds you," while they're busy praising the hand that beats them.

"You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one."

I won't forget you Robert.
gdw
View Profile
Inner circle
4817 Posts

Profile of gdw
No it doesn't Esn, it says they simply should be ALLOWED too.
It's amazing, people will criticize you for "biting the hand that feeds you," while they're busy praising the hand that beats them.

"You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one."

I won't forget you Robert.
EsnRedshirt
View Profile
Special user
Newark, CA
895 Posts

Profile of EsnRedshirt
Quote:
On 2011-05-27 21:50, gdw wrote:
I agree with woland, though, with regards to "shall issue," I just say you shouldn't even have to ask.

If the policy is that they have to issue to anyone that asks, what's the point in having to issue at all?

What purpose does the formality of asking for permission serve besides reinforcing subservience?

You don't ask permission to exercise a right.
Sure, let's give guns to paranoid schizophrenics.

I don't think you're going to find a lot of support for that position anywhere.
Self-proclaimed Jack-of-all-trades and google expert*.

* = Take any advice from this person with a grain of salt.
LobowolfXXX
View Profile
Inner circle
La Famiglia
1197 Posts

Profile of LobowolfXXX
You DO ask for some rights, at least in the USA. Your Canadian mileage may vary. For instance, you have the right to a jury trial; however, if you choose not to exercise your right to a jury trial, you can have a court trial (with the judge as the trier of fact as well as of law). So you ask for the jury trial that you have a right to. You have the right to take your money out of the bank, but you still have to ask for it.
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley.

"...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us."
gdw
View Profile
Inner circle
4817 Posts

Profile of gdw
Quote:
On 2011-05-27 22:19, EsnRedshirt wrote:
Quote:
On 2011-05-27 21:50, gdw wrote:
I agree with woland, though, with regards to "shall issue," I just say you shouldn't even have to ask.

If the policy is that they have to issue to anyone that asks, what's the point in having to issue at all?

What purpose does the formality of asking for permission serve besides reinforcing subservience?

You don't ask permission to exercise a right.
Sure, let's give guns to paranoid schizophrenics.

I don't think you're going to find a lot of support for that position anywhere.


Who said anything about "giving" them guns?
It's amazing, people will criticize you for "biting the hand that feeds you," while they're busy praising the hand that beats them.

"You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one."

I won't forget you Robert.
gdw
View Profile
Inner circle
4817 Posts

Profile of gdw
Well, considering those require the actions of others, they aren't really "rights." They may be "enshrined" in your constitution, but rights aren't created by constitutions.
It's amazing, people will criticize you for "biting the hand that feeds you," while they're busy praising the hand that beats them.

"You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one."

I won't forget you Robert.
ed rhodes
View Profile
Inner circle
Rhode Island
2767 Posts

Profile of ed rhodes
Quote:
On 2011-05-27 22:45, gdw wrote:
Quote:
On 2011-05-27 22:19, EsnRedshirt wrote:
Quote:
On 2011-05-27 21:50, gdw wrote:
I agree with woland, though, with regards to "shall issue," I just say you shouldn't even have to ask.

If the policy is that they have to issue to anyone that asks, what's the point in having to issue at all?

What purpose does the formality of asking for permission serve besides reinforcing subservience?

You don't ask permission to exercise a right.
Sure, let's give guns to paranoid schizophrenics.

I don't think you're going to find a lot of support for that position anywhere.


Who said anything about "giving" them guns?


You're right. Let's let the paranoid schizophrenics buy their guns like anyone else.
"There's no time to lose," I heard her say.
"Catch your dreams before they slip away."
"Dying all the time, lose your dreams and you could lose your mind.
Ain't life unkind?"
kcg5
View Profile
Inner circle
who wants four fried chickens and a coke
1875 Posts

Profile of kcg5
Quote:
On 2011-05-27 19:50, Woland wrote:
More guns, less crime. All of the pundits have been perplexed over the past week because of the news that despite the economic tailspin, serious crime is down in all but a few jurisdictions, with notable exceptions such as New York City. How can that be? I don't know for sure, but one reason may be that there are more guns in private hands than there were 10 years ago. The overwhelming majority of US States have adopted laws which require county sheriffs to issue concealed carry permits to any law abiding citizen, and in all of those States, unless I am mistaken, crime is down. There are 300 million guns in private hands in the United States, and about 9 billion rounds of ammunition were bought each year by private citizens recently. That has got to be a deterrent. When the bad guys aren't sure of a helpless victim, they have to think twice.

W.



wow.
Nobody expects the spanish inquisition!!!!!



"History will be kind to me, as I intend to write it"- Sir Winston Churchill
gdw
View Profile
Inner circle
4817 Posts

Profile of gdw
Let's let buy dog leases that they can strangle people with too.

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/liverpool......8268798/

To focus on schizophrenics and guns is to be missing the forest through the trees on two issues.
It's amazing, people will criticize you for "biting the hand that feeds you," while they're busy praising the hand that beats them.

"You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one."

I won't forget you Robert.
acesover
View Profile
Special user
I believe I have
819 Posts

Profile of acesover
I have a brilliant idea. I know, I know, a lot of you here are saying how can that be it is acesover lol? Smile

OK here goes. Right now guns are legal to be owned and carried my many people in many states. So having said that..Let them do it and those who choose not to let them not do it. Wow that was simple.

While this next thought is off topic and I do not want to derail this thread I am anti abortion. But for now it is legal and those who wish to have one let them. Those who choose not to have one let them not. Wow again simple.

I despise abortion. Some here despise guns and the right to carry them. However both are legal (abortion,right to own and carry guns). So as the saying goes, "LIVE AND LET LIVE". By the way there is sort of a pun in that saying while discussing guns and abortion.
If I were to agree with you. Then we would both be wrong. As of Apr 5, 2015 10:26 pm I have 880 posts. Used to have over 1,000
LobowolfXXX
View Profile
Inner circle
La Famiglia
1197 Posts

Profile of LobowolfXXX
Quote:
On 2011-05-27 23:16, gdw wrote:
To focus on schizophrenics and guns is to be missing the forest through the trees on two issues.


You'd be the last person I'd have expected to retreat from a good ol' reductio ad absurdum.
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley.

"...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us."
balducci
View Profile
Loyal user
Canada
230 Posts

Profile of balducci
Quote:
On 2011-05-27 20:09, acesover wrote:

Again I am not sure what is a lie in the article I posted. If it is wrong I apologize but I did not write it but rther only found it and posted it. To be honest that is one of the reasons I seldom use information on the net but rather just voice my own opinion. By doing differently this time it seemes like it bit me in the read end if what I posted is nothing but a lie.

Opinions are fine, but I think they need to be backed up with facts to be taken seriously.

And I think information off the web is also fine, but it should be cross checked against neutral or close to neutral sources before it is taken seriously.
Make America Great Again! - Trump in 2020 ... "We're a capitalistic society. I go into business, I don't make it, I go bankrupt. They're not going to bail me out. I've been on welfare and food stamps. Did anyone help me? No." - Craig T. Nelson, actor.
RobertSmith
View Profile
Veteran user
331 Posts

Profile of RobertSmith
Quote:
On 2011-05-26 23:16, EsnRedshirt wrote:
Quote:
On 2011-05-26 23:05, Dannydoyle wrote:
Quote:
On 2011-05-26 21:33, EsnRedshirt wrote:
Yep, he had a D in front of his name when he was a senator, therefore he was anti-gun.

For the record, though a lot of people here consider me to be a radical liberal, I do believe in the right to bear arms. (Provided you're not a criminal or insane.)


BUT do you believe in registration of firearms? Do yo believe in "gun control"? And I bet the answer to these simple questions show you for the radical liberal you really are LOL

Danny, do you think anyone who can afford it should be allowed to own a howitzer?



Sure sign of a losing argument is when you have to use extremes. It's in the same line of thinking as the argument, 'if God is all powerful can God create a stone that God can't lift.'

Esnrdsht your argument is baseless and trite.

No one is making an argument for owning a howitzer (or whatever outrageous example you want to suggest).

You know that of course but I'm betting you feel you can't defend your own position so you have to try and set Danny up in an indefensible position.

Weak.
RobertSmith
View Profile
Veteran user
331 Posts

Profile of RobertSmith
Quote:
On 2011-05-27 20:41, EsnRedshirt wrote:
Quote:
On 2011-05-27 19:50, Woland wrote:
More guns, less crime.

Please prove your work. Can you back this up with evidence rather than quoting pundits? I am aware that when Australia outlawed firearms, violent crime went up... In the short term. But I do believe it went down substantially in the long term.


Read John Lott's book. But only do so if you're interested in learning. I wouldn't want you to pull your head out of the sand for nothing.
RobertSmith
View Profile
Veteran user
331 Posts

Profile of RobertSmith
Quote:
On 2011-05-27 21:43, EsnRedshirt wrote:
Woland, by that reasoning, everyone should carry Uzis to defend themselves from criminals with sub-machine guns. Or bazookas. Or maybe small nuclear bombs...

Where does the arms race end?


There you go again with the extremes.
LobowolfXXX
View Profile
Inner circle
La Famiglia
1197 Posts

Profile of LobowolfXXX
Quote:
On 2011-05-28 00:38, RobertSmith wrote:
Sure sign of a losing argument is when you have to use extremes. It's in the same line of thinking as the argument, 'if God is all powerful can God create a stone that God can't lift.'


A sure sign of a winning argument is one that holds when tested at its extreme boundaries. I think that pointing out the (presumably) undesirable consequences of people owning Howitzers is of a different kind than the (apparent)* logical impossibility of God creating a stone that He couldn't lift.


*I say "apparent" out of respect for a response provided by a good friend of mine who is both a logician and a Christian. His rebuttal to the apparent paradox is to say, "Yes, God can create a rock so heavy that he can't lift it. Then he'd lift it." His point being that an omnipotent God could quite plausibly circumvent the laws of logic as we understand them in the same way that He circumvented the laws of physics (e.g. walking on water) as we understand them. He (my friend, that is) suggests that the fact that we as human beings cannot make any sense of how it could be conceivable to lift a rock that one cannot lift doesn't mean that it would pose an insurmountable challenge to God.
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley.

"...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us."
Woland
View Profile
Special user
680 Posts

Profile of Woland
Thanks, gdw, for your agreement, above. Your point that one shouldn't need to apply to the sheriff for a permit to exercise a basic human right is well taken. In fact, that is the position that has always been taken by the State of Vermont. The Vermont State constitution goes even farther than the US Constitution in protecting the right to keep & bear arms. No permit of any kind has ever been required in Vermont to carry a weapon, either openly or in a concealed manner. You do need to be 18 or over, and have a valid State I.D., and I don't think convicted felons or those adjudged insane can carry. But basically, Vermont is a no permit, open & concealed carry State. Local LEOs can issue a permit to Vermonters who wish to apply for permits in other States, under reciprocity guidelines, but not permit is needed in Vermont to carry a pistol, by either a resident or a visitor.

And Vermont is one of the States with the lowest rates of violent crime in the entire nation.

Alaska and Arizona have more recently adopted free no-permit open & concealed carry laws. So in 3 States, so far, what the US Constitution protects as a basic human right, as basic as freedom of speech and of religion, can be exercised without asking the sheriff for permission.

As they say in Vermont, "Freedom & Unity!"

Woland
gdw
View Profile
Inner circle
4817 Posts

Profile of gdw
Quote:
On 2011-05-27 23:25, acesover wrote:
I have a brilliant idea. I know, I know, a lot of you here are saying how can that be it is acesover lol? Smile

OK here goes. Right now guns are legal to be owned and carried my many people in many states. So having said that..Let them do it and those who choose not to let them not do it. Wow that was simple.

While this next thought is off topic and I do not want to derail this thread I am anti abortion. But for now it is legal and those who wish to have one let them. Those who choose not to have one let them not. Wow again simple.

I despise abortion. Some here despise guns and the right to carry them. However both are legal (abortion,right to own and carry guns). So as the saying goes, "LIVE AND LET LIVE". By the way there is sort of a pun in that saying while discussing guns and abortion.


:thumbsup:
It's amazing, people will criticize you for "biting the hand that feeds you," while they're busy praising the hand that beats them.

"You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one."

I won't forget you Robert.
landmark
View Profile
Inner circle
within a triangle
5040 Posts

Profile of landmark
Quote:
On 2011-05-28 01:03, LobowolfXXX wrote:
Quote:
On 2011-05-28 00:38, RobertSmith wrote:
Sure sign of a losing argument is when you have to use extremes. It's in the same line of thinking as the argument, 'if God is all powerful can God create a stone that God can't lift.'


A sure sign of a winning argument is one that holds when tested at its extreme boundaries. I think that pointing out the (presumably) undesirable consequences of people owning Howitzers is of a different kind than the (apparent)* logical impossibility of God creating a stone that He couldn't lift.


*I say "apparent" out of respect for a response provided by a good friend of mine who is both a logician and a Christian. His rebuttal to the apparent paradox is to say, "Yes, God can create a rock so heavy that he can't lift it. Then he'd lift it." His point being that an omnipotent God could quite plausibly circumvent the laws of logic as we understand them in the same way that He circumvented the laws of physics (e.g. walking on water) as we understand them. He (my friend, that is) suggests that the fact that we as human beings cannot make any sense of how it could be conceivable to lift a rock that one cannot lift doesn't mean that it would pose an insurmountable challenge to God.

Lobo you beat me to it. Hmm, I'm starting to agree with you too much these days, though I recognize it's more about how to argue than what. Voltaire, blah blah blah, which I think he never said BTW.
Dannydoyle
View Profile
Eternal Order
20658 Posts

Profile of Dannydoyle
Quote:
On 2011-05-28 01:03, LobowolfXXX wrote:
Quote:
On 2011-05-28 00:38, RobertSmith wrote:
Sure sign of a losing argument is when you have to use extremes. It's in the same line of thinking as the argument, 'if God is all powerful can God create a stone that God can't lift.'


A sure sign of a winning argument is one that holds when tested at its extreme boundaries. I think that pointing out the (presumably) undesirable consequences of people owning Howitzers is of a different kind than the (apparent)* logical impossibility of God creating a stone that He couldn't lift.


*I say "apparent" out of respect for a response provided by a good friend of mine who is both a logician and a Christian. His rebuttal to the apparent paradox is to say, "Yes, God can create a rock so heavy that he can't lift it. Then he'd lift it." His point being that an omnipotent God could quite plausibly circumvent the laws of logic as we understand them in the same way that He circumvented the laws of physics (e.g. walking on water) as we understand them. He (my friend, that is) suggests that the fact that we as human beings cannot make any sense of how it could be conceivable to lift a rock that one cannot lift doesn't mean that it would pose an insurmountable challenge to God.


Testing boundries of an arguement is ok, but ESN almost without fail moves into the logical fallacy of reductio ad absurdum. This is to extrapolate an arguement to rediculous proportions then critisize the results. (you already know this I am certain.) It is a logical fallacy. Testing boundries is ok but he almost without fail pushes them to this level. The Howizer is certainly an example of this. Show me where I said anyone should, or even can own one.
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus
<BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » Anti Gun...check this out.. (0 Likes)
 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3~4~5~6~7~8 [Next]
[ Top of Page ]
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2021 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved.
This page was created in 0.18 seconds requiring 5 database queries.
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café
are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic.
> Privacy Statement <

ROTFL Billions and billions served! ROTFL