Number of anti's on THR?

[Leanwolf]

FUMEGATOR - "Quote:
Rep. Carolyn McCarthy D-NY, CBS' 60-Minutes
"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them -- Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in -- I would have done it."


Just a slight correction. That statement was made on "60 Minutes," by Her Imperial Highness, Democrat Senator, Diane Feinstein, of Kalif.

FWIW.

L.W.

 

[RPCVYemen]

Omhanew's point is that if we pass an ammendment to the constitution that says all brown colored people have to die and have no rights to life than that is okay because the people have agreed that brown colored people have no rights.

I don't think anyone believes "that is okay". But I do think that the courts would have a hard time blocking those actions, if they were expressed in a (ratified) Amendment.

Mike

 

[Titan6]

Originally Posted by Titan6
Omhanew's point is that if we pass an ammendment to the constitution that says all brown colored people have to die and have no rights to life than that is okay because the people have agreed that brown colored people have no rights.

I don't think anyone believes "that is okay". But I do think that the courts would have a hard time blocking those actions, if they were expressed in a (ratified) Amendment.

The "government" in this country is nothing more than the people speaking in concert and if the people, through their representative, decide that one of their "rights" should be abolished then it happens. If you've got a line on any other "rights" then please let me know where they come from...

Oh sure, some people might be uncomfortable with it but we can get rid of their rights too. It is not like they are in-alien-able or anything like that. And if the courts don't like it we can make another ammenedment to get rid of them as well.

 

[Daniel T]

I have never heard an anti say that any object that can be used to kill a human being should be regulated/banned.

You keep saying this like it's meaningful. It isn't. Just because you haven't experienced a thing doesn't make you an authority on what other people have.

I've debated antis for years on other boards, boards that catered to the intelligent, rational, and skeptical. I've heard all of the arguments that you apparently haven't, so stop dismissing them.

 

[RPCVYemen]

Just because you haven't experienced a thing doesn't make you an authority on what other people have.

That is absolutely true.

I've heard all of the arguments that you apparently haven't, so stop dismissing them.

So you are claiming with a straight face that you have been involved in debates with intelligent rational people who argue that "hands, feet. and teeth" should be banned?

Do you have a reference to a "tooth banning" thread? It should be an interesting read.

Mike

 

[Daniel T]

Yeah, I was only talking about the teeth thing, not the 3 or 4 other things that you so cavalierly dismissed.

 

[XD Fan]

I haven't been on in several days. It looks like this one is still going strong.

 

[RPCVYemen]

Yeah, I was only talking about the teeth thing, not the 3 or 4 other things that you so cavalierly dismissed.

Now I am confused by your post. Have you or have you not been involved in a thread where rational intelligent people proposed banning "knives, screwdrivers, hammers, motorized vehicles, water, pipes, hands and feet, teeth, dogs, glass, and wood"?

I am not making up that list - here's the quote:

If guns are banned, what will be next? Knives, screwdrivers, hammers, motorized vehicles, water, pipes, hands and feet, teeth, dogs, glass, wood? All of these and soooooo many more items have been used to cause death or serious injury.

Mike

 

[Carl N. Brown]

Britain has seriously considered banning all pointed kitchen knives.

Massachusetts responded to the MS13 gang (weapon of choice:
machette) by calling for a police permit to own a machette
restricted to property owners with demonstrable weed problems.

It is purely hyperbole or sarcasm to claim that hands, feet and
teeth might be banned; but recall Fredrick Wertham's 1950s crusade
against comic books: the ban-an-object-to-control-behaviour
mind set is capable of some real stretches.

 

[Daniel T]

Now I am confused by your post.

Are you easily confused by sarcasm? I thought the roll eyes gave it away.

In any event, you may want to look back over your posts and check for the other things you dismissed as "never heard an anti say..." that don't involve teeth.

 

[Larry Ashcraft]

RPCVYemen and Daniel T: Take it to PM. I don't want to lock this thread because of petty bickering.

 

[RPCVYemen]

Britain has seriously considered banning all pointed kitchen knives.

Massachusetts responded to the MS13 gang (weapon of choice:
machette) by calling for a police permit to own a machette
restricted to property owners with demonstrable weed problems.

That's pretty wacky - I have never heard of those.

I have heard of people wanting to ban certain kinds of knives (for the same reason they want to ban handguns). I was always told growing up that "switch blades are illegal" - I have no idea if that is true.

Mike

 

[RPCVYemen]

RPCVYemen and Daniel T: Take it to PM. I don't want to lock this thread because of petty bickering.

I accept that bit of eldering and apologize for participating in that set of exchanges.

I think that I am mostly done with this thread. My original reason for becoming involved was to object to the notion that pro gun args were rational, and anti args were inherently emotional and irrational.

While there are rational and irrational arguments on both sides, I think it entirely possible that there exist rational arguments for gun control. I don't agree with those arguments (by and large), that's not because the arguments are irrational. Mostly they begin wit different axioms.

If anyone can demonstrate this not to be true, then I'd be interested in continuing the conversation.

I found the discussion of the existence of "natural" or "inalienable" rights pretty interesting.

Mike

 

[skinnyguy]

Hmmmmm. It would seem that I have been quoted out of context for the most part.

If guns are banned, what will be next?

If you believe that the disarming advocates will stop at firearms, you are sadly mistaken. Here is just one small list of importing banned or restricted items. http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/travel/vacation/kbyg/prohibited_restricted.xml While it does not explicitly detail exactly what is banned or restricted, it does provide info on where you can find out.

I also said that if guns are banned, law enforcement will of course have to give up their firearms. If that is the case, how would they be able to collect the now illegal guns that the general public owns without the use of firearms? How would those officials go about collecting the illegally owned firearms? The only possible way is for law enforcement to break the law to enforce the law. That is called a police state. That is just one more HUGE step towards the fall of the United States of America.

 

[Fosbery]

A group of doctor's supposedly wanted to ban pointed kitchen knives in the UK. Nothing came of it.

However, there is currently a bill to ban 'samurai swords'. Oddly enough, the ban is aimed at cheap samurai swords not designed for fighting, but for display. Genuine Japanese katanas, made to be used, will be exempt. However, it will probably dissapear and never get passed.

Police are planning to ban glasses (as in, what you drink from) and glass botels from pubs and clubs across the UK, because they can be used as weapons. The ban is already in force in some areas. They can do this without passing a law because they are the body that lisences premesis to serve alcohol - they will simply refuse to lisence a place that has glass bottles or cups. Ah, democracy in action...

Some things that are already illegal in the UK (to transfer, though not to own) include:

Brass knuckles
Any weapon incorporating a knuckle duster
Switchblades
Push daggers
Gravity knives
'Hollow kubatons' (no idea what these are, but they are described as containing spikes :S)
Ninja stars
Sword canes
Belt buckle knives
Butterfly knives
Expanding batons
Tazers
Stun guns
Pepper spray/mace/CS gas etc
Blowguns

 

[BHPshooter]

I believe you mean Dianne Feinstein on AWB 94.

Yes, of course... I don't know how I screwed that one up. I guess it's the migraine talking.

The point, however, remains.

The reductio ad absurdum that Skinnyguy proposes argues that cannot reasonably distinguish between teeth and a handguns as instruments of lethality. My point is that it is not only possible to distinguish between the two, but that we do in fact distinguish between the two when we arm soldies and police. What else could be the point of his post?

The point is that you can only ban objects -- and even then, not all of them, like teeth -- but the objects aren't the dangerous part. It's the behavior. That's the point.

I also said that if guns are banned, law enforcement will of course have to give up their firearms. If that is the case, how would they be able to collect the now illegal guns that the general public owns without the use of firearms? How would those officials go about collecting the illegally owned firearms? The only possible way is for law enforcement to break the law to enforce the law. That is called a police state. That is just one more HUGE step towards the fall of the United States of America.

Ha! Good one, Paul. Since when has any gun law applied to the police? After all, only the police and military need guns.

I can't think of a single gun-control measure that applies to the police. They are pretty much immune. What's dangerous about that is that it widens the "us vs. them" rift, creating even more of a privileged class -- or in this case, a privileged profession.

Wes

 

[junyo]

Now I am confused by your post. Have you or have you not been involved in a thread where rational intelligent people proposed banning "knives, screwdrivers, hammers, motorized vehicles, water, pipes, hands and feet, teeth, dogs, glass, and wood"?

Assuming that you intend your comments to be taken seriously, antis argue that none of the other devices you mention possess the combination of lethality and portability of handguns.

I have seen anti's argue that it's the inherent lethality of guns that make them a unique case.

However, to your point, for the anti argument to be logically consistent, they'd have to also be in favor of a ban on anything shown to be as or more lethal than handguns. I think it's demonstrable that at least motor vehicles and water (along with various pieces of farm equipment) are as lethal as guns and either fairly portable or ubiquitous in a given environment (thus negating the need for portability).

But that's an aside...

While there are rational and irrational arguments on both sides, I think it entirely possible that there exist rational arguments for gun control. I don't agree with those arguments (by and large), that's not because the arguments are irrational. Mostly they begin wit different axioms.

I just chimed back in to compliment an excellent observation. It's always bad policy to assume that your opponent is simply an idiot and disrespect their argument, but people seem to fall into that trap fairly easily. It's dangerous because it leads to complacency and lazy arguments; works great for preaching to the converted but bounces off your target audience. Wed be more effective by acknowledging and attacking the logical basis rather than getting bogged down in the swamp of specific arguments.

 

[Legionnaire]

Ahhh ... my point exactly!

 

[sm]

Don't ban teeth - not yet anyway.

I need my teeth to munch my popcorn while I read this thread.

My "Intent" is to educate myself and learn from this thread.

I promise I do not have any illegal intent just because I have teeth...honest!

 

[evan price]

When you go back 500 years to Europe as it was before the Founders came to America, there were no guarantees of "natural" rights.
The common people lived at the behest and whim of their fuedal lords.

If a landed noble decided to kill off some of his peasants, the only fear of retalitation he would have is if he did this without sanction of a lord above him, or the King.
Peasants or serfs were born into basic slavery. They tilled the land they were told to till, lived where they were told to live, and had no say in how they were treated. If a man and woman wanted to marry they had to ask the permission of their lord, and that lord express his jus primae noctis and visit the bride on her wedding night maybe. The people could not move from where they lived or travel without permission. They had no liberty.
They had no rights to the profits of their labor. Even "freedmen" had to pay taxes, which could be assessed as little or as much as the lords demanded. Many were basically slaves in act if not name. They had no right of property.

Now enter the Founders. They are setting up their new country according to rules intended to make every man a king of his own right. If you wanted to you could defend your life against those who would take it. Prevent your property from being stolen. Move about the nation wherever you saw fit to go with whatever you could take with you and your whole family if you wanted. If you didn't want to live in Viriginia you could move to Maine. Or wherever, needing no man's permission.

That was freedom especially back then, when most of the world lived in the feudal system of lords and vassals.

A bold idea.

Prior to this, the only man who could do exactly as he wished was the King. The US Constitution empowered every man to be a monarch of his own domain wherever he may travel.

Now that's a refreshing idea in those times.

 

[Fosbery]

before the Founders came to America, there were no guarantees of "natural" rights.

Not so. The English Bill of Rights, which is the basis of your own Bill of Rights, lays out a number of natural rights of the people including the right to keep and bear arms, the right to peaceful protest, the right to free course of justice in the courts of law etc. This was written a good hundred years before your own Bill of Rights.

Now enter the Founders. They are setting up their new country according to rules intended to make every man a king of his own right. If you wanted to you could defend your life against those who would take it. Prevent your property from being stolen. Move about the nation wherever you saw fit to go with whatever you could take with you and your whole family if you wanted. If you didn't want to live in Viriginia you could move to Maine. Or wherever, needing no man's permission.

This was true of Europe too. Britain, certainly. Serfs had long since been emancipated and were now free men. A lordship was merely a title, it did not give them leave to go around murdering the local populus. Until property qualifications for voting were abolished in America, the only real difference was that more Americans had more land (it was a big place afterall) and so a higher percentage were qualified to vote.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

The common people lived at the behest and whim of their fuedal lords.

Which is why the Brits made a folk hero of Robin Hood.

 

[Beatnik]

The common people lived at the behest and whim of their fuedal lords. (etc, etc)

There are a couple things wrong with this post.

First and foremost, it's missing about 600 years of history. The feudal era was basically dead and gone by 1300: for about 150-250 years before that, Europe was experiencing a largely unknown industrial revolution which turned the whole idea of feudalism on its head. It's really hard for a lord to exercise his absolute power over an agrarian society when the Church, a rival lord, or a corporation controls the only mill in the area.

And according to thestraightdope, jus prima noctis may never have existed.
http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a5_181.html

Here's some more food for thought about feudalism: in 1368-1370, a league of North and Baltic seas herring businesses militarily forced the king of Denmark to give up 15% of Danish trade profits to them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanseatic_league

Then there was that minor disease that killed off a quarter of the population... thousands of the self-contained feudal villages simply disappeared literally overnight. Makes it hard to perpetuate a system.

Schools in the US do an absolutely abysmal job of teaching European history. An awful lot happened in that 600 years, and the reality is that people didn't have it that bad in 1776.

 

[Fosbery]

Beatnik has the right of it. The main advantage that Americans had over Europeans was not that they were better treated by their government but that there was better opportunity. Americans still had to own land in order to vote, just like the British. The difference was that with more land to go around, more Americans could get enough of it to be able to vote.

 

[ConfuseUs]

Sure Europeans had generally ceased to use feudalism long before 1776 but it is worth noting that many of the American colonists were either indentured servants (fancy term for "serf"), transported convicts, or outright slaves imported from Africa. Indentured servitude for say, 15-20 years back then was essentially for the rest of one's life given the life expectancy in the late 17th and early 18th centuries. So from the perspective of many early settlers, the name changed; the system was the same.

Also worthy of note: many of the Scots colonists were literally forced onto ships and exported by their lords. Granted Scotland could not support them, but the way it was done was not terribly different from treating people like chattel property.