Defend the Second Amendment!

Yeah, thanks. Me too.

 

I was mistaken----it was 1/2 the worlds wealth. Which is still outrageous.

 

I haven't met a miscreant more determined than I, but I might.

 

The horn was more exciting.

 

That's what she said.

 

was she bare also

 

As I've brought forth time after time: it's left wing anti-gun policies that wind up selling more guns in the end. Whenever a restrictive gun bill goes through congress, more guns get sold due to a "better buy (or 3d print) one before it's too late" mentality all across the consumer public. In the end, it's the left wing that sells the most guns! Hahahah enjoy the irony much?

Perhaps, maybe the left actually isn't as anti-gun ownership as we might think. Maybe they are working under the table with gun manufacturers to cause this buy-now-before-it's-too-late mentality to sell more weapons. Seems like an over stretched conspiracy theory, but hey anything is possible.

 

[SIZE=12pt]Sorry but your main counter argument still seems to be that I’m wrong because I’m wrong because you don’t like what I’ve said, and the other stuff seems to make it clear you haven’t actually read what’s been said (while ironically complaining it is often repeated).[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]Well, I have said you are wrong but it seems as usual you ignore the reasons I give for it. As for liking what you say, I have no particular dislike for what you say, it just seems not well thought out.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]Quote[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]People fear many things fire, storms, earthquakes, etc. but I don’t hear you riling about people buying fire extinguishers, building storm shelters, moving away from earthquake areas or wearing seat belts out of fear. Again you somehow think that Americans feel unsafe and think they need a weapon and again I point out this is not the case. I don’t feel unsafe in my car yet I wear a seat belt. I don’t feel unsafe in my apartment yet I have a smoke alarm.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]I’ve covered this type of argument many, many times (there is something on cars above in this thread) but let us by all means go through it again.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]Okay.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]People might fear storms if they live somewhere where they believe storms are dangerous and therefore might feel the need to build a storm shelter. People who live in places were storms are seen as not very dangerous probably wouldn’t feel they needed a storm shelter.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]First, all people, at least in the US, live in areas where storms are dangerous, maybe you didn’t know that.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]Myself, I grew up in what is called tornado alley and in 20 years never saw a tornado, although I many times saw the damage caused but I have seen two tornadoes in Colorado which is not in tornado alley. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]Whether people fear those storms depends on their experience with storms and their personality. I personally love storms and seek them out, so I’m not building a shelter any time soon but then again if I had a wife and children I might rethink building a shelter although the danger would not have gotten any worse and I would still have my love of storms but then, if your posts are any indication, you would say that I would be building the shelter out of fear.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]Likewise, you continue to try and make a connection between fear, gun ownership and societal problems in the US where there is none. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]So if people stopped been so fearful of the society they live in they probably wouldn’t feel they needed at gun as protection against it.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]Once again how many times do you have to be told, that your own facts and figures show that most people in the US that own guns (52%) do not own guns for the primary purpose of protection. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]So let’s look at this whole thing reasonably, according to what I could find the highest figure I could find for gun ownership in the US was 34% and for the sake of argument let’s round that up to 50%. Now according to your figures 48% of gun owners have them for protection. So that means less than 25% of Americans own guns for protection. So it seems that your whole diatribe about being “so fearful of the society they live in” that they feel “they needed at gun as protection against it” doesn’t even apply to 75% of Americans.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]As for this, [/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]Virtually all the things you mention are passive, storm shelter, seat belt, smoke alarm etc, they are not about threatening or inflicting pain or death on other human beings. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]Perhaps but their purpose is stopping and lessening pain or death in your loved ones and as for guns, they can also be used passively to stop those who are “threatening or inflicting pain or death on other human beings”.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]A lot of time and effort is spent trying to limit risk in such areas often involving laws and regulation. Fire regulations in buildings and for manufactured goods are about limiting the risk of fire, work and public places have more regulation attached to limit fire risk. I’ve been taught how to use a fire extinguisher but the advice of fire fighters is to get out and leave it to the professional whenever possible and I don’t have one at home.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]Again it seems you may have failed to listen. All you heard was “get out and leave it to the professional”. The professional more than likely told you that if you see a fire start you have about a minute and a half to put it out, any more than that just “get out and leave it to the professional”.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]It is the same with cars with manufactures and regulators trying to find ways to limit the risks, (highway codes, license requirements, insurance etc) in the UK all traffic accidents are monitored and collated to see if for example there are any accident black spots so action can be taken to rectify any problems (traffic calming installing traffic lights cutting back vegetation etc).[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]There all kinds of risk and risk mitigation, do we need to put seat belts on kitchen chairs? [/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]Cars? Right now we could prevent all death and injury from cars, it would be easy, just get rid of them but I don’t hear anyone seriously suggesting it, like some do for guns.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]To me it often seems like pro-gunners don’t really want to limit the risks associated with a high level of gun ownership. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]It may seem that way to you but does that really mean it’s so like you keep implying? [/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]If you actually tried to be fair and balanced you might see that pro-gunners spent a lot of time discussing how to limit the risks. They usually see the solution as better education rather than the restrictions you seem to recommend. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]Quote[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]you keep implying that the US could easily solve all their social ills if only they got rid of all those nasty guns. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]I’ve never said that - I have however often said that if people stopped been so fearful of the society they live in they probably wouldn’t feel they needed at gun as protection against it[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]Again with this old chestnut, yep it’s not like you repeat yourself or anything. Over and over again. Try rewording what you have say once in a while just out of common courtesy.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]Quote[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]Honestly your lumping California and Georgia together is a little like me lumping the UK and the Ukraine together.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]Have I lumped California and Georgia together can you point to the post where I do? [/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]Honestly? What do you think the word American covers? Have you ever said something like; “this only applies east of the Mississippi”?[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]I have compared London to Philadelphia we have looked at the homicide rates per 100,000 of some places but…well I’m unsure what your augment is here?[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]Well of course you’re unsure. You keep talking like the US is the size of the UK, it’s not and that is my point. You’re like the blind men describing an elephant. You grab one little thing about the US and seem to think you have it all figured out, then deign to the posters here your wisdom on the matter.[/SIZE]

 

Old

OK you dislike what I’m saying and seemingly for that reason you dislike me - I mean I point out you have got something wrong about what I’ve said and repeat what is correct and you don’t apologise you attack me for repeating it telling me I’m rude for always repeating stuff - which begs the question – if I have I’d said it so many times why didn’t you get it correct?

You say I ignore your reason for your dislike but the problem is that the main reason you dislike them seems to be because you dislike them, you even dislike me saying you dislike them, saying you dislike them because they are not thought through – which is fine but can you explain why you think them un-thought through beyond just telling me I’m wrong?

You say that a lot of what I’m saying doesn’t apply to many Americans and all I can reply is well duh of course, that isn’t a counter argument to what I’ve said, it’s not directed at those that it’s not directed at.

I try to talk to you seriously about rick and you come back with silly little asides like a giggling school kid about putting safety belts on kitchen seats and the old chestnut covered many times about banning all cars, really is hard to take you seriously when you react so much like a cantankerous child

Have you got a coherent and rational counter argument and if so please present it - because I think we’ve all got it by now that you don’t like what I’m saying, which is fine, it’s not a rational counter argument but that’s fine, your dislike is noted.

 

[SIZE=12pt]OK you dislike what I’m saying and seemingly for that reason you dislike me [/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]Once again you fail to read and understand simple English.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]“[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]As for liking what you say, I have no particular dislike for what you say, it just seems not well thought out.”[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]As for disliking you, it seems you’re taking things a little too personal, I have little or no reason to take what you say personally, let alone form a disliking for you. Personal attacks on me just leave thinking what a waste of time. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]- I mean I point out you have got something wrong about what I’ve said and repeat what is correct and you don’t apologise you attack me for repeating it telling me I’m rude for always repeating stuff - which begs the question – if I have I’d said it so many times why didn’t you get it correct?[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]What do have in mind? I copy and paste what you say, how is that getting it wrong? [/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]As for being rude, if we were having a face to face discussion and I repeatedly said exactly the same thing over and over again, you would call me out on it. But you seem to think that because this is online and not face to face it is okay for you to say the same things over and over again without even bothering to reword them. That’s not only rude but I’m beginning to think that you may be computer generated rather than a real person I’m talking to.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]You say I ignore your reason for your dislike but the problem is that the main reason you dislike them seems to be because you dislike them, you even dislike me saying you dislike them, saying you dislike them because they are not thought through – which is fine but can you explain why you think them un-thought through beyond just telling me I’m wrong?[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]Once again before go off like this please carefully reread what has been said to you.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]“[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]As for liking what you say, I have no particular dislike for what you say, it just seems not well thought out.”[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]And that should give you a reason why I think what you say is not well thought out.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]You say that a lot of what I’m saying doesn’t apply to many Americans and all I can reply is well duh of course, that isn’t a counter argument to what I’ve said, it’s not directed at those that it’s not directed at.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]Well at least this isn’t a repeat of what you’ve said before and yet it’s not well thought out. You have recommended forms of gun regulation and guess what, that would apply to all Americans and yet you say that what you are saying doesn’t apply to many Americans, which is it?[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]I try to talk to you seriously about rick and you come back with silly little asides like a giggling school kid about putting safety belts on kitchen seats and the old chestnut covered many times about banning all cars, really is hard to take you seriously when you react so much like a cantankerous child[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]Who or what is rick? [/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]Sorry to hear you don't appreciate my sense of humor and aren’t you taking this all a little too personally?[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]Have you got a coherent and rational counter argument and if so please present it - because I think we’ve all got it by now that you don’t like what I’m saying, which is fine, it’s not a rational counter argument but that’s fine, your dislike is noted.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]Once again please read what has been said to you[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt](“[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]As for liking what you say, I have no particular dislike for what you say, it just seems not well thought out.”)[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]before you go off on a rant like this.[/SIZE]

 

[SIZE=11pt]Old[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt][/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]What you wrote was not cut and paste and it was wrong and you did not apologize for getting it wrong[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt][/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]And the reason I have to keep doing it is because people like you keep getting it wrong. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt][/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]This is what I mean about you not really wanting to talk sensibly, preferring pathetic asides and even worse ‘humor’ [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]If you have some coherent argument please present it, I’m sure I’m not the only one that finds the lack a substance boring. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]Oh and please don’t come back with something ‘humorous’ along the lines of “oh well your lack of substance is boring as well”[/SIZE]

 

[SIZE=12pt]What you wrote was not cut and paste and it was wrong and you did not apologize for getting it wrong[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]Okay I give up what in the world are you talking about? What did I get wrong that you seem so personally offended about?[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]And the reason I have to keep doing it is because people like you keep getting it wrong. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]Once again, I give up what in the world are you talking about? What did I get so wrong that you seem so personally offended about?[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]Quote[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]Who or what is rick? [/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]This is what I mean about you not really wanting to talk sensibly, preferring pathetic asides and even worse ‘humor’ [/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]This is what I mean, you used the word “rick” in your post and I didn’t know what you are referring to and simply asked about it and now, because I asked, you attack me. What’s up?[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]If you have some coherent argument please present it, I’m sure I’m not the only one that finds the lack a substance boring. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]I have already tried that but in a feeble attempt to refute it you just post something that you have already posted many times and think it somehow is a response to what has been said, it’s a little like you’re trying to pound a square peg in a round hole, it just doesn’t fit. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]And now we’re off on this tangent because I happened to mention that you try to blow people off with a stiff cut and paste debate tactics. I was kind of hoping that I could get you out from behind your usual dog eared dogma and have an actual discussion on the subject but I can see that’s not gonna happen, you’re just getting upset.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]Oh and please don’t come back with something ‘humorous’ along the lines of “oh well your lack of substance is boring as well”[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]You're taking this waaaaaaaaaaaay too personally. [/SIZE]

 

You have a personal opinion about the discourse of another person, not a sound line of reasoning of your own nor do you even take reason into account when addressing him. You imagine yourself waaaaaaaaay more intellectually sound that you actually are. Only the insecure at some level think they need guns. You can argue and deny it till you are blue in the face on this one and not change that very real fact of condition. I will repeat it in case you didn't understand the first fifteen times. Only the insecure at some level think they need guns!

 

[SIZE=12pt]You have a personal opinion about the discourse of another person,[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]Yes I do.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]not a sound line of reasoning of your own[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]Perhaps.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]nor do you even take reason into account when addressing him.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]Sounds like a personal opinion about the discourse of another person.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]You imagine yourself waaaaaaaaay more intellectually sound that you actually are.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]Perhaps.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]Only the insecure at some level think they need guns.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]Sounds like a personal opinion.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]You can argue and deny it till you are blue in the face on this one and not change that very real fact of condition.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]I see you give no proof of this “fact”.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]I will repeat it in case you didn't understand the first fifteen times. Only the insecure at some level think they need guns![/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]Repeating something over and over again does not make it a fact, some proof would be nice.[/SIZE]

 

Actually teen pregnancy rates are so high because the very same people who want to overturn Roe v Wade are the people who do not want to teach kids about sex; and are winning victories in this regard in the school systems. Throw in media glorification of meaningless hookups, as well as poverty and lack of opportunities, and you have a perfect storm of poor, bored kids with nothing to do but explore their bodies without knowing the risks and responsibilities.

Those galas and celebrations were to celebrate the decision that a woman has a right to her own body; you may see the issue a different way but let's not pretend that they are literally celebrating the killing of foetuses; the way you perceive the issue is important. They are celebrating rights. What you just said is like saying that when people are celebrating MLK day, what they are really celebrating is the government enforced unemployment of "Whites only" sign makers . . . sure, in a twisted way you are technically correct, but if you went around and asked every person what they are celebrating, not one person would respond thusly.

 

The proof is in the nature of condition and the fact is you cannot deny it with reason. You can't even demonstrate it is not true for you. It is obvious that guns are not needed for survival as there was a time when there were no guns. As far as you taking reason in account you haven't given a name to what you say the problem is. As usual you think you are not the author of your own verdicts. What is the problem other than the fact that you just don't like what Balbus said? You gave no reasonable counter argument to his points. It is obvious to the objective bystander that the problem is yours.

 

[SIZE=12pt]The proof is in the nature of condition[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]“Nature of condition”? What in the world is this suppose to mean?[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]The fact is you cannot deny it with reason.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]Yep, you can’t reason against non-sense.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]You can't even demonstrate it is not true for you.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]Non-sense cannot be demonstrated to be true or false it is just non-sense.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]It is obvious that guns are not needed for survival as there was a time when there were no guns.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]Yep. So what is your point? [/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]As far as you taking reason in account you haven't given a name to what you say the problem is.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]You can call it your momma if you want.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]As usual you think you are not the author of your own verdicts.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]If I have made verdicts then I am their author, just as you are the author of the verdicts you have made about me.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]What is the problem other than the fact that you just don't like what Balbus said?[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]It seems that you cannot read either. How times to I have to say that I neither like nor dislike what Balbus has to say but I just don’t think it is very well thought out.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]You gave no reasonable counter argument to his points.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]I have but like many things, a "reasonable counter argument" is ofttimes in the eye of the beholder.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]It is obvious to the objective bystander that the problem is yours.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]Since when are you an objective bystander?[/SIZE]

 

blah blah blah!
YOU ALL will line up at the FEMA camps to turn in your guns for food, shelter, water, medicare, security.
The 2nd has outlived it's purpose after the indian pacification. Now it is a plague on society.
Repubs, teapartiers, loosers and criminals of all stripes need guns as to compensate for their shortcomings in the manhood departement.

 

Old

And that’s my point you don’t know, the point being that you don’t seem interested in debate, you are not following what’s said and your replies have just become full of snide remarks and what you seem to think of as ‘humorous’ asides.

I read the posts and try to follow what people say, time and again your replies indicate you don’t and seemingly don’t want to.

For example we all make spelling mistakes or grammatical errors, many of us have busy lives and often short times to write and proof readers can be so expensive. The more understanding here know that and make allowances, a common curtsy you could say, we ignore the odd spelling mistake, the missed word or incorrect usage even the total lack of punctuation and capitalisation, because the meaning can be obvious in context.

We were discussing risk and risk had been mentioned several times, but I did make a spelling mistake and typed ‘rick’ instead of risk at one point - an honest debater would have realised the context and moved on just like a lot of honest debaters here do every day, but no you make a big thing about it, it’s indicative of your whole approach, you just don’t seem interested in an honest debate.

So if you have no rational arguments to present can you please just stop posting this rubbish.

 

The nature of condition is that all things come with their complimentary features. The word condition itself meaning to speak with. For example you need both a pursuer and the pursued in order to establish the condition of pursuit. So my statement is that the perception of the need for guns comes from some level of insecurity by virtue of the nature of condition This is the sense of what I am saying and no you haven't given reasonable counter arguments to what Balbus is saying, you have offered only impressionistic statements that are not based on any statistical sampling of the world, they are based only on the sampling of your own limited perspective, I.e. it can't be true for any amurikans because you don't think it is true for you. Fact is I asked you what the problem is and you have no name for it other than Balbus is not very reasonable and this is not just a matter of the eye of the beholder because we are talking about reason which can be communicated and agreed to upon reasonable peer review. If you think that he is unreasonable then you have no peer statements to review or comment upon, You aren't even playing the same game because you can't distinguish the difference between an objective and subjective take on things. Balbus points are in fact well considered. I am an objective bystander in that I have no position to defend nor do I lean to self denial to explain away my own prejudice. No silly, beauty is in the eye of the beholder., Reason is the common currency of men and reason must stand before reason, reasonable to make it's mark. I hope you understood at least a fifth of what I just wrote here.

 

thedope, on 27 Jan 2015 - 09:16 AM, said:
The nature of condition is that all things come with their complimentary features. The word condition itself meaning to speak with. For example you need both a pursuer and the pursued in order to establish the condition of pursuit.

If you say so.

Quote
So my statement is that the perception of the need for guns comes from some level of insecurity by virtue of the nature of condition. This is the sense of what I am saying

And what condition might that be?

Quote
and no you haven't given reasonable counter arguments to what Balbus is saying, you have offered only impressionistic statements that are not based on any statistical sampling of the world, they are based only on the sampling of your own limited perspective, I.e. it can't be true for any amurikans because you don't think it is true for you.

And that is your subjective opinion that is not based on facts. I have not only offered my own "statistical samplings of the world" but have used Balbus' own ""statistical samplings of the world" in reasoning with him.

Quote
Fact is I asked you what the problem is and you have no name for it other than Balbus is not very reasonable

I have never said that Balbus is "not very reasonable", I have only said that what he says does not apply very well to what has been said to him, mainly because he tries to apply what he has said before without adapting it to what has now been said to him and that makes what he says not well thought out.

Quote
and this is not just a matter of the eye of the beholder because we are talking about reason which can be communicated and agreed to upon reasonable peer review.

Nice try but no cookie, what is reasonable is at times in the eye of the beholder. For example God, there are those who believe in God and consider it to be the most reasonable thing in the world and yet there are those who will argue that there is no God and that those believe in God are just unreasonable, which is it? Who is the proper peer group to pronounce what is reasonable?

Quote
If you think that he is unreasonable then you have no peer statements to review or comment upon,

Once again I never said he was unreasonable, just that his comments were not well thought out.

Quote
You aren't even playing the same game because you can't distinguish the difference between an objective and subjective take on things.

Are you really the one who should "judging" who can distinguish the difference between an objective and subjective take on things?

Quote
Balbus points are in fact well considered.

Again I never said that Balbus' points are not well considered, they are but ofttimes when replying to someone's comments it seems he does not stop to consider whether his "cut and paste" answer actually fits the comment that has just been made.

Quote
I am an objective bystander in that I have no position to defend nor do I lean to self denial to explain away my own prejudice.

the dope, you have never been an "objective bystander" and aren't one now.

Quote
No silly, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

Yes it is but many other things are as well.

Quote
Reason is the common currency of men and reason must stand before reason, reasonable to make it's mark.

Yep, that's a nice idea.

Quote
I hope you understood at least a fifth of what I just wrote here.

Yep, except for "nature of condition" you didn't engage in your babble speak and I thank you for that.

(Thanks MeAgain, I tried what you said but I got this message; "You have posted more than the allowed number of quoted blocks of text" so I kinda went back to the way I was posting be before. Any sugesstions?)