- Joined
- Feb 2, 2006
- Messages
- 17,343
- Reaction score
- 2,876
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
Doesn't change the fact, dumbass, that if your statement was not an ad hom, as you claimed, then neither is mine.You cried first, post 639.
Doesn't change the fact, dumbass, that if your statement was not an ad hom, as you claimed, then neither is mine.You cried first, post 639.
So, you have NOT, with something substantive, show the bolded statement to be true.
Your argument necessarily fails, as is it unsupported by anything substantive.So you ran away from my content and my pertinent questions, for pages and pages, spinning falsehoods about the content, and now the onus is on me to respond to your latest query ? ? ? Oh I don't think so runner awayer.
Once you go back and address my content and questions, I might do you the return courtesy of addressing your most recent posting.
So... because there are "more people in an area" they should be disarmed?
Simple possession of a firearm - regardless of type - doesnt endanger anyone.No one should be disarmed, that would be a violation of the 2nd Amendment
and I believe everyone should have something to protect themselves with. More restrictions could be considered for safety though. For example - after looking at factors like population and crime rate, they may decide it wouldn't be a great idea for people to have automatic rifles in one place or another.
Your argument necessarily fails, as is it unsupported by anything substantive.
Simple possession of a firearm - regardless of type - doesnt endanger anyone.
Simple possesion of a firearm by a clinically insane person does endanger people.
Even if we assume this is necessarily true, what's your point?
Possession of a pencil by a clinically insane person can endanger people too.
That's besides the point.
That's besides the point.
how so?
You said that guns in the hands of a dangerous individual (crazies, felons, etc.) endanger folks.
Well, the simple fact is that, guns aside, it is the crazies & felons THEMSELVES that actually endanger people, not the guns.
Guns may be used for protection or in a crime. Criminalizing (or over restricting) them only closes the former option--that's not a good thing. As you said: "Simple possesion of a firearm by a clinically insane person does endanger people." I say, all the more reason that I should be able to carry one if I so choose-- to protect myself (which is my right--and yours).
Not entirely...
A man who knows what he is doing can kill you with a pencil.
However, lets address the issue of the "clinically insane" and guns.
The devil is in the details, as usual.
Who defines what is clinically insane?
As my Psyche 101 Prof was fond of saying, "the difference between you and the guy in the crazy house is a question of degree."
Almost everyone has some symptoms of some neurosis, anxiety, phobia, stress disorder, etc. There are levels: some are self-manageable; some of treatable with therapy; some require meds to function; some are nonfunctional or dangerous and are institutionalized.
Which categories should be denied the use of arms?
The institutionalized of course...but what if later they are pronounced "cured" and released?
What about those who take meds for schizophrenia? I've known some. On meds and off-meds, they are different people...but a lot of them are not good about staying on their meds.
Some people are on meds for something, like anxiety or PTSD, but aren't necessarily DANGEROUS even if they are off their meds. What about them? Who decides?
Right NOW, millions of vets are potentially subject to losing their 2A rights due to having PTSD.... they are not necessarily DANGEROUS but could have their rights stripped just because.
Where do we draw the line?
This (insanity argument) is another issue where caution is indicated. The slippery slope is not a fallacy if someone is pushing an agenda.
Okay, quite honestly, I don't know how to specifically define a clinically insane person. When I refer to a clinically insane person, I'm talking about Virginia Tech, if that is any indicator.
For the most part, consider this what I'm using as a definition: Insanity
As long as we are defining someone as "too insane to exercise the right to bear arms" as someone who is demonstrably DANGEROUS, I'm okay with that.
We just have to be aware that there are those who oppose gun rights who'd like to take that football and run with it, and ban millions or tens of millions of people from arms whose only fault is, they take mild medications for anxiety attacks or came home from war with a little PTSD.
What I'm arguing is that the gun makes it a whole lot easier for a person who is crazy to kill you. Yeah, a guy with a pencil can kill you, but he'll most likely have to work much harder then he would have to with a gun.
So what do you think should be done about this?
Restrict everyone else's ability to defend themselves against a madman or a criminal with a gun? If so, you aren't really making him work harder to kill you, you're making it harder for people to defend themselves.
No, what I want is to restrict his ability to kill someone, in the form of making it harder for him to get a gun. As for everyone else, they can keep their guns.
On the contrary -- I understand the nature, perfectly well.YOU fail. To understand the very nature of a normative discussion.
My comment wasnt directed to or at clinically insane people, it was, given the context of the post I responsed to, directed toward the law-abiding citizenry in general.Simple possesion of a firearm by a clinically insane person does endanger people.
That doesnt change the fact that simple possession -- by a person who has the right to keep and bear arms -- doesn't endanger anyone.What I'm arguing is that the gun makes it a whole lot easier for a person who is crazy to kill you. Yeah, a guy with a pencil can kill you, but he'll most likely have to work much harder then he would have to with a gun.
My comment wasnt directed to or at clinically insane people, it was, given the context of the post I responsed to, directed toward the law-abiding citizenry in general.
That doesnt change the fact that simple possession -- by a person who has the right to keep and bear arms -- doesn't endanger anyone.