Forums

[-Alex]

And we still haven't established that firearms are designed to harm and kill as a primary purpose.

What are they designed for?

I still dispute that putting a hole in a target, breaking a clay, or putting a scratch in the paint on a steel gong target is "harm" when that's the target's purpose.

Fine. Hey, how about this - you're free to own a Nerf Gun and you can aim it at all the targets you want.

Extend that to anything else... getting hit by a pitch in baseball causes harm. Ban Baseball. Getting tackled in football causes harm by your definition. Ban football. Getting in a car accident causes harm. Ban cars.

Or, perhaps instead of banning baseball, we make it safer and have restrictions on bats, helmets, and baseballs.

Or perhaps instead of banning football, we make it safer and have restrictions on football gear, medical care, and look more into the concussion issues.

Or perhaps instead of banning cars, we make it safer and have car regulations, safety rules, rules of the road.

[-Alex]

At least at this point, I guess we can agree that your orignal comment about comparing guns to a person in a relationship was a reductio ad absurdum. Like so many of your posts to follow it.

[JimDandy75]

At least at this point, I guess we can agree that your orignal comment about comparing guns to a person in a relationship was a reductio ad absurdum. Like so many of your posts to follow it.

No we can't agree. First, let me post a link for you...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum
That's a wikiepdia entry for Reductio Ad Absurdum. That's the continuation of a premise into the ridculous. Claiming the opinion that as we have no business telling somene who the can sleep with or what they can do about the procreative consequences afterwards is the same as having no business telling someone they can own a Ruger Mini 14, but not an AR-15. When they're, at their core, the same gun. That we have no business telling someone how many people they can sleep with extends to having no business telling someone how many rounds they can load in their magazine.

Or perhaps instead of banning cars, we make it safer and have car regulations, safety rules, rules of the road.

We have rules making guns safer, and have rules for handling them, and when, where, and how they are legally able to be fired. A small small percentage of the population doesn't follow them,so you want to ban firearms. A small small percentage of the population doesn't follow the rules of the road. And you don't want to ban cars.

I do think there are things we can agree on.

You will not be convinced by anything I say.

I will probably not be convinced by anything you say, as you continue to be so dead set against guns, you hold that punching a hole in a target is "harm".

I respect your right to NOT own a gun.

You do not respect my right TO own the gun of my choosing- and probably any gun at all.

And here's one that's mine that i doubt you will agree to, but I think has been shown by your comments...

You are willing to throw any SCOTUS decision or right we have under the bus to get the result you want to get rid of anything you are uncomfortable with, as long as it never gets applied to something you want- even though by opening that chink in the armor you open the door to exactly that. You would be happy with an AWB today. Regadless of the fact that it would be an extremely iffy law that has at best a 50/50 chance of passing SCOTUS scrutiny. And if it doesn't pass scrutiny we will have wasted all the tax dollars spent enacting, enforcing, and defending this law from legal challenge.

I don't care what side of the debate someone is on, I think we should all be against an AWB until the constitutional issues are addressed.

[-Alex]

Claiming the opinion that as we have no business telling someone who the can sleep with or what they can do about the procreative consequences afterwards

Whose words are these that you are quoting here? Who claimed this specifically? Is that all they claimed, no other argument for why two human beings should be treated equally, whereas two weapons, or cars, or something else might not follow along the same logic?

When they're, at their core, the same gun. That we have no business telling someone how many people they can sleep with extends to having no business telling someone how many rounds they can load in their magazine.

Really?

We have rules making guns safer, and have rules for handling them, and when, where, and how they are legally able to be fired.

Ok, great - so we can have more.

small small percentage of the population doesn't follow them,so you want to ban firearms.

Watch yourself, and stop putting words in my mouth. I have never mentioned banning firearms because some people don't follow the rules. Stop lying.

A small small percentage of the population doesn't follow the rules of the road. And you don't want to ban cars.

But we do ban certain cars, and require cars to meet certain standards. Hm...

I do think there are things we can agree on.

Such as we can ban certain cars and firearms that don't meet standards set by congress?

You will not be convinced by anything I say.

I generally am not convinced by people who pretend I am saying things I am not.

as you continue to be so dead set against guns

Case in point. Pretending I am saying things I am not. Well done at convincing me.

You do not respect my right TO own the gun of my choosing- and probably any gun at all.

"Who cares about reality, let's just tell the other person what they probably think, probably that you don't have the right to any gun at all. Let's not listen to people, let's let our brainwashing take over, and remove all credibility I had."

But you're damn right that I don't respect your non-existent right to own the gun of your choosing. You want to choose a fully automatic weapon? Or a bomb? Too bad. You don't have that right, and I don't respect it.

You are willing to throw any SCOTUS decision or right we have under the bus to get the result you want to get rid of anything you are uncomfortable with, as long as it never gets applied to something you want- even though by opening that chink in the armor you open the door to exactly that.

Abso-frakking-lutely not. But you don't give a flying frak what I think, it's better to argue against your own made up enemy in your head.

don't care what side of the debate someone is on

Well you made THAT obvious when you just assign them a side and tell them what their arguments are for them.

[JimDandy75]

Whose words are these that you are quoting here? Who claimed this specifically? Is that all they claimed, no other argument for why two human beings should be treated equally, whereas two weapons, or cars, or something else might not follow along the same logic?

My words. Those are my claims. We should not tell a man/woman who they may or may not sleep with another man/woman. We should not tell them what they can do if pregnancy occurs (though obviously in some cases the point is moot) We should not tell them anything as regards to race, creed, and so on. As long laws such as age, consent and other conceptually similar laws that keep it an act between two consenting adults, I believe we have no business getting involved.

Likewise I feel as long as no laws regarding the choice of target are broken, we have no business telling someone who is not a prohibited person what firearm they may own, or how many rounds they may load it with.

[-Alex]

My words. Those are my claims.

Ok, so you are claiming we have no business telling someone who the can sleep with or what they can do about the procreative consequences afterwards? Okay, then there is no reason for me to dispute you arguing with yourself.

If you want to argue with words that other people have chosen - and refrain now from putting words in their mouth as you did incredibly disrespectfully in you 12:27 post, then that would be good.

[JimDandy75]

I don't believe I did put words in your mouth. I believe you are anti-guns. I believe the evidence of your posts bears that out.

You have argued for registration.
You have argued that firearms exist only to harm and kill, even stretching that into the sporting activities like target/clay shooting as harmful.

[-Alex]

I don't believe I did put words in your mouth.

Your belief is irrelevant to the facts, you did in fact put words in my mouth, which is incredibly disrespectful. You said I am willing to throw out any Scotus decision, putting words in my mouth. You said I disagree with your rights, putting words in my mouth.

I believe you are anti-guns.

Your belief is irrelevant to the facts.

I believe the evidence of your posts bears that out.

But then you'd cite that evidence. Of where I said these specific things. And explain how it bears it out, how I must be anti-gun, and can't possibly anything else.

You have argued for registration.

Like voter registration. So, am I anti-vote?

You have argued that firearms exist only to harm and kill

I said primary purpose, not only purpose. You could also use it as a paperweight. And I said they were designed to. I understand you're misinterpretation of my post, given your stated stance. But thanks for giving me the opportunity to clear up your mistake.

That is an easy , even stretching that into the sporting activities like target/clay shooting as harmful.

I don't know what this sentence means. And I don't believe I've ever mentioned sporting activities, have I? I have no reason not to keep these sporting activities around with modified and safer weapons.

[JimDandy75]

I don't believe I did put words in your mouth.

Your belief is irrelevant to the facts, you did in fact put words in my mouth, which is incredibly disrespectful. You said I am willing to throw out any Scotus decision, putting words in my mouth. You said I disagree with your rights, putting words in my mouth.
[/quote

I put words in your mouth, to the same extent you just put them in mine. I said I think it's been shown by your comments. That makes it my opinion.

[-Alex]

I put words in your mouth, to the same extent you just put them in mine.

Really? You didn't say those things in your post at 12:27?

I said I think it's been shown by your comments.

No, you attempted to backtrack, and said that only AFTER putting words in my mouth. Correct?

That makes it my opinion.

No, these make it you putting words in my mouth:

You will not be convinced by anything I say.

You do not respect my right TO own the gun of my choosing- and probably any gun at all.

You are willing to throw any SCOTUS decision or right we have under the bus to get the result you want

If you weren't putting those words in my mouth, you would have prefaced all of those with "it seems like," or phrasing it as a question.