324 replies to this topic

[Babe Ruth]

Stellar, on 28 December 2012 - 07:44 PM, said:

You see, I disagree with this statement right here. No, the use of drugs hasn't been eliminated, that is true... but I do firmly believe that the laws regarding drugs have prevented many more people from using the more extreme drugs. It was done through both legislation as well as education.

I do firmly believe that if there was no laws concerning drugs, many more people would be using cocaine, heroin, etc.

Simple question Stellar, and I've asked it of many.

Speaking only for yourself, if cocaine and heroin or any of the other presently illegal drugs were made legal tomorrow, would YOU begin to use them?

[Babe Ruth]

ninjadude, on 28 December 2012 - 07:53 PM, said:

weird. I have the exact opposite reaction. In fact, I have a cousin in law enforcement. Every time I went to his house I was uneasy knowing there was a gun in the house.

Just guessing, but maybe you and I were raised differently with respect to firearms?

My grandfather was a Chicago cop, and we kids were raised with a serious respect for firearms.  We had a proper firearms education, and were shooting pistols and rifles at a young age.  Then in the Army, I went through standard training and qualified with a variety of rifles and the standard .45 automatic pistol.

So I've never been afraid of inanimate objects.  They are merely tools.

I am worried about the human operators of those tools when they are UNeducated in the proper use of those tools.

I am NOT worried about those tools in the hands of my fellow citizen, as long as he is reasonably sane and well trained.

[Babe Ruth]

Liquid Gardens, on 28 December 2012 - 08:12 PM, said:

Hahahahaha!!  Oh the lack of self-awareness is priceless, would you like me to purchase a mirror for you?



The sticking point is that you are incapable of moving beyond your shallow talking points, and will just strawman people if that suits you.  Why, it's almost like you were doing it to 'feel better' and given how vapid your point is, I can see why you would need to do that.

Quote me where I said, "that passing some law, any law, whether it works or not law, will make you feel better", or don't you care about accuracy and whether you are correctly representing other's statements?  Quit dodging my questions, it makes your 'argument' here look stupid; true or false, if we were to ban all guns and ammunition in this country, in 50 years do you think gun deaths would be reduced?  If you answer is false, please elaborate why you don't think it would make any difference at all, assuming you are capable of moving off your script.  If you think it's true, which I think it is, then why don't you put to rest the idea that 'more legislation won't make any difference' and perhaps move on to a deeper point if there is one.

As far as the USC, no, I didn't say that what's protected by the USC doesn't mean anything to me; I said that the things that the Constitution protects don't mean much to me simply by virtue that it is in the Constitution.  Things don't magically become good ideas just because they are in the Constitution, they are good ideas and principles by themselves; the USC is not of divine origin.  Lots of people have problems with the 16th Amendment allowing the collection of income tax, does 'the USC mean nothing to them' also?  Is the 'rightness' of the income tax sacred now just because it's in the USC?



Yes, BR, when in doubt just go right back to square 1 and act as if that is not a straight repeat of what you said a few days ago that I objected to and like there's been no conversation since.  Better yet, why don't you get to work demonstrating that any possible law will have no effect.  The usual rules apply; your supposed expertise, ruminations about psychology, and ha, especially your interpretation of body language are not admissible.

If a gun ban were imposed in this country, my guess is that in 50 years, probably way less, the federal government would have been overthrown, as long as we're dealing in hypotheticals.

We just agree to disagree here LG.  You believe that adding one more gun law to the already existing list of hundreds of gun laws is going to make some sort of meaningful difference.  I do not believe that fantasy, because I've been paying attention for quite a few years now, and have noticed that when new gun laws are added to the books, federal, state or local, nothing happens except bad things.

In the recent Heller case, the court recognized that citizens have a right to defend themselves and their homes, no matter what silly nonsense the local bureaucrats put forth.  This is a very corrupted Supreme Court, but it got that one right.

[AsteroidX]

There wont be a new gunlaw. Itleast not a legitimate one.

[Stellar]

Quote

Simple question Stellar, and I've asked it of many.

Speaking only for yourself, if cocaine and heroin or any of the other presently illegal drugs were made legal tomorrow, would YOU begin to use them?

I would not. If they had been legal all my life? Perhaps.

Now, a question for you. If all drugs were legalized, do you believe that drug use would not increase?

[Babe Ruth]

I suspect there would be some sort of increase by some people, but it would be small because most folks are just not so inclined.

As it is right now, those people who WANT to use drugs do so.  It is a dynamic and complex situation, and has been greatly affected by the very widespread TV advertising of drugs direct to consumer.  Until Bill Clinton's term, such advertising was forbidden.  I think it was around 1996 that Clinton repealed the ban on direct to consumer advertising of Rx drugs.

Anybody who has ever smoked pot, and that includes me, knows it is benign, and that little factoid is very much involved in why certain youngsters feel they have been lied to about drugs, and then go on to more dangerous drugs.

Under the present system we have the "forbidden fruit syndrome" at work, and that is a powerful motivator for some humans.

[Liquid Gardens]

Babe Ruth, on 29 December 2012 - 02:54 PM, said:

If a gun ban were imposed in this country, my guess is that in 50 years, probably way less, the federal government would have been overthrown, as long as we're dealing in hypotheticals.

We just agree to disagree here LG.  You believe that adding one more gun law to the already existing list of hundreds of gun laws is going to make some sort of meaningful difference.  

This response is a cop-out, albeit predictable.  Let's try again since you are dodging.  If we (a majority of the citizens of the US, not the evil government imposing it upon us) decide that guns should be absolutely outlawed with stiff penalties, and the government is not overthrown and some other wackadoodle scenario that can be imagined that allows you to avoid the question does not occur, would you expect gun deaths to decrease?

This is why it's frustrating to talk with you BR, and why I come away with the idea that everything is so shallow with you which it may not actually be.  You seem to at all costs want to make sure that you can not only never appear to be potentially wrong but not even give a little ground, and this gets in the way of being able to first off get at what your detailed position actually is and worse, actually have a nuanced semi-indepth discussion.  Here's the response that is along the lines I was looking for and was expecting, I'm not saying this is your position and am not strawmanning you:  "Yes LG, of course we could put in place ridiculously drastic laws that would likely eventually reduce gun deaths, but at great costs to our liberty and security that would actually make things overall worse in society, and it would instead be more effective to do 'x' instead'."  I think it's a pretty banal point, if you can make it more difficult to get guns then that logically will reduce gun deaths all things being equal; go ultra-extreme and say we have summary execution of anyone caught with a gun, that 'one more law' would reduce gun deaths, no?  There are all kinds of interesting topics that could be discussed here.  Is it better to reduce the number of guns or have an armed populace so that people can stop nuts before they cause too much damage?  Can we effectively address the underlying causes of these violent outbursts in the first place?  Why are the current laws so ineffective at reducing gun deaths, is that even what they are designed to do?  If we put in place more draconian gun control measures, what penalties are reasonable, when should we expect to see an impact?  Instead we have to go through multiple posts where you just keep strawmanning me with a caricature of what I'm saying that is so greatly oversimplified that it is plain inaccurate; there is no progress that can be made that way.

[Liquid Gardens]

preacherman76, on 29 December 2012 - 09:34 AM, said:

What do you mean no evidence? The bill of rights its self is the evidence.

Sigh.  Simply point out where in the Bill of Rights it says that the amendments in the Bill of Rights cannot be amended or repealed by future amendments.  Simply point to anyone with any legal expertise who says that.  You can't, because it is a fact that they can be.

[Liquid Gardens]

preacherman76, on 29 December 2012 - 09:44 AM, said:

And you acuse Babe of using strawmen.

Not one thing regarding what the founders believed about the second amendment has changed. Not one.

I'm not sure you understand what a strawman is.  I don't know how to unpack that last sentence; not one thing the founders believed has changed, of course, because they are dead.  If I were to guess, I think what you are trying to say is that there have been no further laws that have significantly altered the scope of the second amendment or overturned it, which is largely true I think, but so what?

Let me flesh out my comment that you are objecting to, it was admittedly brief.  Providing a list of quotes by the founding fathers concerning the 2nd amendment is fine as far as it goes, which is to clarify what the amendment actually meant to them.  Fine, now that that is established, so what?  Two centuries have passed, two centuries within which we have rightly disregarded and hold as contemptible their thoughts concerning slavery.  So let's be clear that ideas are not inviolate or holy just because the founding fathers supported them.

[flyingswan]

Liquid Gardens, on 29 December 2012 - 04:51 PM, said:

Two centuries have passed, two centuries within which we have rightly disregarded and hold as contemptible their thoughts concerning slavery.

Which raises the point, did the founding fathers think that their slaves had the right to bear arms?  If not, then the interpretation of the Bill of Rights has indeed been altered over time.

Edited by flyingswan, 29 December 2012 - 05:26 PM.

[odiesbsc]

Here's an interesting study on guns and gun control. It's quite long but its got some actual facts about the topic. I doubt that many gun control advocates will even read it.

Guns are used 2.5 million times a year in self-defense. Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year—or about 6,850 times a day.(1) This means that each year, firearms are used more than 80 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives.(2)

http://gunowners.org/fs0404.htm

Odie

[Babe Ruth]

Liquid Gardens, on 29 December 2012 - 04:35 PM, said:

Sigh.  Simply point out where in the Bill of Rights it says that the amendments in the Bill of Rights cannot be amended or repealed by future amendments.  Simply point to anyone with any legal expertise who says that.  You can't, because it is a fact that they can be.

Liquid Gardens, on 29 December 2012 - 04:35 PM, said:

Sigh.  Simply point out where in the Bill of Rights it says that the amendments in the Bill of Rights cannot be amended or repealed by future amendments.  Simply point to anyone with any legal expertise who says that.  You can't, because it is a fact that they can be.

So, are you advocating for a repeal of the Second?  It sounds that way, but considering our relationship, it's hard to tell.

[ninjadude]

Michelle, on 28 December 2012 - 08:40 PM, said:

And I was only talking about Illinois...clean your glasses, dude.

There are almost 13million Illinoisians.

[ninjadude]

odiesbsc, on 28 December 2012 - 11:07 PM, said:

Who knows better what the Second Amendment means than the Founding Fathers?

in the 18th century that would be true. Not so much today.

[Liquid Gardens]

flyingswan, on 29 December 2012 - 05:24 PM, said:

Which raises the point, did the founding fathers think that their slaves had the right to bear arms?  If not, then the interpretation of the Bill of Rights has indeed been altered over time.

Good question.  I'd guess they didn't as I don't think slaves were considered 'citizens' until after the Civil War, but you are of course right that the interpretation has still changed.  It's confusing as in some statements they are made to sound strictly like property but in others, like in the Constitution, they are worth 3/5 a person for taxation.