Thanks for correcting me on the howitzer thing Titan6. I was just trying come up with something off-hand for a little dose of humor to a serious topic. With that being said, it brings up another issue concerning gun laws. You don't need a gun to murder, to rape, to steal, or to do anything evil. If the intent is there, evil can occur. The only way a gun makes doing evil deeds easier, is if the victim doesn't have one. And we all know that crooks are going to have guns even if they are completely illegal.
If There Were No Antis What Gun Laws Would You Have?
- Thread starter shotgunjoel
- Start date
- Status
Okay DoD, I'll state specifically why I disagree with your HazMat analogy.
1. You are confusing regulations with laws
2. You are confusing negative rights and positive rights
3. Your analogy is falling victim to the fallacy known as misleading vividness. I mentioned it earlier and I thought you'd at least look it up. "Misleading Vividness is a fallacy in which a very small number of particularly dramatic events are taken to outweigh a significant amount of statistical evidence." Not to mention it is also a hypothetical and by their very nature hypotheticals are somewhat weaker arguments than facts.
4. I've been reading and re-reading the Bill of Rights and I cannot for the life of me find where the right to keep and bear hazardous materials is mentioned.
1. You are confusing regulations with laws
2. You are confusing negative rights and positive rights
3. Your analogy is falling victim to the fallacy known as misleading vividness. I mentioned it earlier and I thought you'd at least look it up. "Misleading Vividness is a fallacy in which a very small number of particularly dramatic events are taken to outweigh a significant amount of statistical evidence." Not to mention it is also a hypothetical and by their very nature hypotheticals are somewhat weaker arguments than facts.
4. I've been reading and re-reading the Bill of Rights and I cannot for the life of me find where the right to keep and bear hazardous materials is mentioned.
archigos
Member
Discharging/handling a gun irresponsibly is criminal negligence.
That's about it.
That's about it.
Duke of Doubt
member
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2008
- Messages
- 2,863
I'm really beginning to question some long-held assumptions.
I mean it.
For three decades and change I have assumed that the irrational folks herded over on the anti-gun side.
This thread has convinced me that many pro-gun people are irrational, too. Comically so.
We have met the enemy, and he is us.
I mean it.
For three decades and change I have assumed that the irrational folks herded over on the anti-gun side.
This thread has convinced me that many pro-gun people are irrational, too. Comically so.
We have met the enemy, and he is us.
legaleagle_45
Member
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2007
- Messages
- 834
It is in the Emanations and Pneumbras clause....
Duke of Doubt
member
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2008
- Messages
- 2,863
Delta G Supernaught: "Okay DoD, I'll state specifically why I disagree with your HazMat analogy. 1. You are confusing regulations with laws 2. You are confusing negative rights and positive rights 3. Your analogy is falling victim to the fallacy known as misleading vividness. I mentioned it earlier and I thought you'd at least look it up. "Misleading Vividness is a fallacy in which a very small number of particularly dramatic events are taken to outweigh a significant amount of statistical evidence." Not to mention it is also a hypothetical and by their very nature hypotheticals are somewhat weaker arguments than facts. 4. I've been reading and re-reading the Bill of Rights and I cannot for the life of me find where the right to keep and bear hazardous materials is mentioned."
"Misleading vividness"? I aced my college Logic course, and I don't recall this as even an "informal" fallacy.
Regulations are laws. Statutes are laws. Judicial decisions and their precedent are laws. Constitutional provisions are laws. Administrative orders are laws. Lots of things are laws -- of varying authority and heirarchy. Hazmats aren't in the Constituion because it's a detail better left to administrative law and regulation, or if things get out of control, judicial review.
Hypotheticals are easier to deal with in argument than trotting out real life historical situations, of which others could and would dispute the veracity and details ad nauseum. I could say, "But Patrick Purdy ..." and we'd all spend hours debating what exactly he was carrying and when and why. No need.
"Misleading vividness"? I aced my college Logic course, and I don't recall this as even an "informal" fallacy.
Regulations are laws. Statutes are laws. Judicial decisions and their precedent are laws. Constitutional provisions are laws. Administrative orders are laws. Lots of things are laws -- of varying authority and heirarchy. Hazmats aren't in the Constituion because it's a detail better left to administrative law and regulation, or if things get out of control, judicial review.
Hypotheticals are easier to deal with in argument than trotting out real life historical situations, of which others could and would dispute the veracity and details ad nauseum. I could say, "But Patrick Purdy ..." and we'd all spend hours debating what exactly he was carrying and when and why. No need.
expvideo
Member
So this is what your arguement is reduced to? Taunting? Not to pick at the bones or anything, but I expected more from you.
Funderb
Member
hahahahahahaha.
now i know this is all a joke. or dream.
Titan6
member
Yes like Gravity and Relativity are also Laws. But your minutiae is more prattling on about nothing.
But since you fear those also due to your weak unexplained argument you avoid that fight as well.
Well you are half right.
Duke of Doubt
member
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2008
- Messages
- 2,863
Titan6: "My brain don't work so good. Do you want more or less people control?"
I'm for less control in many ways, and less control overall, but more control in certain limited areas.
For example, I do not believe an admitted communist should be permitted to possess a firearm.
I'm for less control in many ways, and less control overall, but more control in certain limited areas.
For example, I do not believe an admitted communist should be permitted to possess a firearm.
Funderb
Member
whoa.
If you think party affiliation is grounds for limitations of rights, then I think baptists shouldn't own firearms because they are a little weird.
SERIOUSLY, listen to yourself.
If you think party affiliation is grounds for limitations of rights, then I think baptists shouldn't own firearms because they are a little weird.
SERIOUSLY, listen to yourself.
Duke of Doubt
member
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2008
- Messages
- 2,863
Titan6: "Yes like Gravity and Relativity are also Laws. But your minutiae is more prattling on about nothing."
Hey, you're the prat who claimed I somehow was confusing regulations and laws.
Titan6: "But since you fear those also due to your weak unexplained argument you avoid that fight as well."
This isn't a fight. This is my failed attempt to edumacate a turd.
Hey, you're the prat who claimed I somehow was confusing regulations and laws.
Titan6: "But since you fear those also due to your weak unexplained argument you avoid that fight as well."
This isn't a fight. This is my failed attempt to edumacate a turd.
K3
Member
The brainwashing by the media, the PC, and loudmouths in Congress is nothing if not effective.
There was a time when freedom and limited government weren't irrational ideas. Evidently that time has passed.
Funderb
Member
Duke, you are way out of line, and you need to take a breather, this is THR and we are not calling people turds, unless that is another misguided attempt at humor.
Duke of Doubt
member
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2008
- Messages
- 2,863
funderb: "If you think party affiliation is grounds for limitations of rights, then I think baptists shouldn't own firearms because they are a little weird."
Communists aren't like Democrats or Republicans. They advocate violent overthrow of the lawful government and its replacement with an oligarchic tyranny. Their outlaw as a party was just barely overkill. However, allowing them to arm themselves is suicidal for a free society.
Communists aren't like Democrats or Republicans. They advocate violent overthrow of the lawful government and its replacement with an oligarchic tyranny. Their outlaw as a party was just barely overkill. However, allowing them to arm themselves is suicidal for a free society.
Funderb
Member
allright, that is your opinion, and I respect it. I'm not a communist, and know few, so you may know something I don't.
I just want to take guns from criminals.
I just want to take guns from criminals.
Titan6
member
Actually that was not me. You need to go back and reread the posts and pay attention to what you are doing before you start shooting your keyboard off.
For the record regulations are just that. They can be given the force of law if there is law with it.
Ok, don't give up! You might learn something in the end!
SoCalShooter
Member
NO gun laws whatsoever
expvideo
Member
He's right, funderb. It's called a subversive organization. In WA state, it is a felony to be a member of the communist party. Felons can't own guns.
In many places communists are criminals just for being communists. Like DoD said, it's not like being Republican or Democrat. The Communist Party is not simply a political party, but a subversive organization. Kind of how the Israelis view Hamas. It's not just a political party.
I've made my feelings clear earlier I'd just like to add a question to those who live in suburbia or the city and think we should have no restrictions at all. Think of the dumbest loudmouth person you know, now imagine if he could have all the TNT he wanted right next door. would you be comfortable with that?
expvideo
Member
Comfortable. Why would that make me uncomfortable? He can buy all of the gasoline he wants, too. I really don't see where you're going with this.
Titan6
member
Ok {Titan strums keyboard and mind wanders}
The Duke of Doubt gets to be my neighbor and has all the TNT he wants....... thinking about it... thinking about it.....
WHAT ON EARTH DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH THE QUESTION ABOUT GUNS?
OH YEAH! ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!
Alright well maybe not the Duke, he can at least spell check....
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
