Total Posts:30|Showing Posts:1-30
Jump to topic:

Every sane person supports "gun" control.

proglib
Posts: 391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2013 12:07:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
If you want to debate this point, here is the link:

http://www.debate.org...

If you just want to discuss, have at it....
"I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.* And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue." Barry Goldwater
*Except in a democracy it might lose you an election.

http://unitedwegovern.org...
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2013 12:48:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/7/2013 12:33:46 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
If you would like to do a serious debate on gun control, I would oblige.

Blood in the water xD
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2013 1:27:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/7/2013 12:25:51 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
This is silly semantics about any limitation being "gun control," right? Prohibiting nukes is thus "gun control."

Prohibition on nukes does not prevent the spread of nukes, it only slows down the spread of nukes.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
proglib
Posts: 391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2013 4:33:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/7/2013 12:48:08 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 4/7/2013 12:33:46 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
If you would like to do a serious debate on gun control, I would oblige.

Blood in the water xD

Ouch! :q
"I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.* And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue." Barry Goldwater
*Except in a democracy it might lose you an election.

http://unitedwegovern.org...
APB
Posts: 267
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2013 4:34:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/7/2013 12:07:04 PM, proglib wrote:
If you want to debate this point, here is the link:

http://www.debate.org...

If you just want to discuss, have at it....

I would, but it won't let me accept.
proglib
Posts: 391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2013 4:48:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/7/2013 4:34:10 PM, APB wrote:
At 4/7/2013 12:07:04 PM, proglib wrote:
If you want to debate this point, here is the link:

http://www.debate.org...

If you just want to discuss, have at it....

I would, but it won't let me accept.

@APB

The criteria are "insanely" difficult so that I don't end up debating a newb on a topic that could be considered "silly semantics" by a more experienced debater like Roy. [See above.]
"I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.* And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue." Barry Goldwater
*Except in a democracy it might lose you an election.

http://unitedwegovern.org...
proglib
Posts: 391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2013 4:50:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/7/2013 1:27:09 PM, DanT wrote:
At 4/7/2013 12:25:51 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
This is silly semantics about any limitation being "gun control," right? Prohibiting nukes is thus "gun control."

Prohibition on nukes does not prevent the spread of nukes, it only slows down the spread of nukes.

Exactly!

[By the way, Geo's quote in your signature is hilarious.]
"I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.* And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue." Barry Goldwater
*Except in a democracy it might lose you an election.

http://unitedwegovern.org...
proglib
Posts: 391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2013 5:00:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/7/2013 12:33:46 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
If you would like to do a serious debate on gun control, I would oblige.

Roy

Tell me more.

Are you sane and smart and support gun control, or are you sane and smart and oppose gun control?

Although it seems like silly semantics, to me it is the start of a serious conversation. The beginning of dialogue.

If you agree that some form of gun control is acceptable, then we can have a discussion of what form. The conversation that I've seen from many who seem to fetishize either the second amendment or guns is along the lines of "Obama's thugs (or "liberals") are trying to take away our guns." Well that is just BS.

Every sane person supports some limitation on private ownership of weapons. If we agree on that, and accept that as a premise, then yes we could have a debate.
"I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.* And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue." Barry Goldwater
*Except in a democracy it might lose you an election.

http://unitedwegovern.org...
APB
Posts: 267
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2013 5:39:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/7/2013 4:48:22 PM, proglib wrote:
At 4/7/2013 4:34:10 PM, APB wrote:
At 4/7/2013 12:07:04 PM, proglib wrote:
If you want to debate this point, here is the link:

http://www.debate.org...

If you just want to discuss, have at it....

I would, but it won't let me accept.

@APB

The criteria are "insanely" difficult so that I don't end up debating a newb on a topic that could be considered "silly semantics" by a more experienced debater like Roy. [See above.]

Then you're shooting yourself in the foot, because you won't get a debate at all.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2013 6:18:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/7/2013 5:39:16 PM, APB wrote:
At 4/7/2013 4:48:22 PM, proglib wrote:
At 4/7/2013 4:34:10 PM, APB wrote:
At 4/7/2013 12:07:04 PM, proglib wrote:
If you want to debate this point, here is the link:

http://www.debate.org...

If you just want to discuss, have at it....

I would, but it won't let me accept.

@APB

The criteria are "insanely" difficult so that I don't end up debating a newb on a topic that could be considered "silly semantics" by a more experienced debater like Roy. [See above.]

Then you're shooting yourself in the foot, because you won't get a debate at all.

Pun intended?
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
proglib
Posts: 391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2013 6:34:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/7/2013 6:18:10 PM, DanT wrote:
At 4/7/2013 5:39:16 PM, APB wrote:
At 4/7/2013 4:48:22 PM, proglib wrote:
At 4/7/2013 4:34:10 PM, APB wrote:
At 4/7/2013 12:07:04 PM, proglib wrote:
If you want to debate this point, here is the link:

http://www.debate.org...

If you just want to discuss, have at it....

I would, but it won't let me accept.

@APB

The criteria are "insanely" difficult so that I don't end up debating a newb on a topic that could be considered "silly semantics" by a more experienced debater like Roy. [See above.]

Then you're shooting yourself in the foot, because you won't get a debate at all.

Pun intended?

Good question!
"I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.* And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue." Barry Goldwater
*Except in a democracy it might lose you an election.

http://unitedwegovern.org...
Citrakayah
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2013 6:58:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Actually, the challenge does make logical sense. If we are to view the government as having no ability to restrict arms--the fundamentalist position of the second amendment--then it can't restrict the availability of nukes.
sadolite
Posts: 8,839
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2013 7:02:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/7/2013 5:00:17 PM, proglib wrote:
At 4/7/2013 12:33:46 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
If you would like to do a serious debate on gun control, I would oblige.

Roy

Tell me more.

Are you sane and smart and support gun control, or are you sane and smart and oppose gun control?

Although it seems like silly semantics, to me it is the start of a serious conversation. The beginning of dialogue.

If you agree that some form of gun control is acceptable, then we can have a discussion of what form. The conversation that I've seen from many who seem to fetishize either the second amendment or guns is along the lines of "Obama's thugs (or "liberals") are trying to take away our guns." Well that is just BS.

Every sane person supports some limitation on private ownership of weapons. If we agree on that, and accept that as a premise, then yes we could have a debate.

It's as though you think there are no laws prohibiting ownership or the regulation of certain types of guns. It's like this is all new to you and are completely unaware that there are already laws regarding gun ownership. There are thousands of laws and restrictions with regard to gun ownership already on the books. How about we enforce them.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2013 7:29:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/7/2013 6:58:32 PM, Citrakayah wrote:
Actually, the challenge does make logical sense. If we are to view the government as having no ability to restrict arms--the fundamentalist position of the second amendment--then it can't restrict the availability of nukes.

That won't change anything. There are entire governments that are seeking to implement nuclear weapons- and failing. The notion that if nukes were legalized that every single person would have them is absurd. In fact, I would contend that the only people who would be able to purchase them would be billionaires, from whom the danger is null.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2013 7:47:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Are you sane and smart and support gun control, or are you sane and smart and oppose gun control?":

Even the staunchest supporters of gun rights likewise supports some level of gun control, so he's pointing out that you need to define your terms better. I agree with his assessment.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
Patriotism
Posts: 1
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2013 7:59:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Yes, every sane person supports some sort of gun control. But that control could be extremely overbearing and restrictive, or extremely lax. Most right wingers prefer gun control to not be overbearing and restrictive. How about something along the lines of, "Gun control is necessary", or "Gun control is effective."
Citrakayah
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2013 8:22:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/7/2013 7:29:20 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
That won't change anything. There are entire governments that are seeking to implement nuclear weapons- and failing. The notion that if nukes were legalized that every single person would have them is absurd. In fact, I would contend that the only people who would be able to purchase them would be billionaires, from whom the danger is null.

Oh really?
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2013 8:24:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/7/2013 8:22:11 PM, Citrakayah wrote:
At 4/7/2013 7:29:20 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
That won't change anything. There are entire governments that are seeking to implement nuclear weapons- and failing. The notion that if nukes were legalized that every single person would have them is absurd. In fact, I would contend that the only people who would be able to purchase them would be billionaires, from whom the danger is null.

Oh really?

We should pass a couple regulations disallowing the simultaneous ownership of volcanoes, long-haired cats, and nuclear weapons, just to avoid tempting fate.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2013 9:24:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/7/2013 5:00:17 PM, proglib wrote:
At 4/7/2013 12:33:46 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
If you would like to do a serious debate on gun control, I would oblige.

Roy

Tell me more.

Are you sane and smart and support gun control, or are you sane and smart and oppose gun control?

Actually whether a person is sane or not is irrelevant to a debate. A debate stands on it's own, not on who is doing the advocacy. I like Greg Gutfeld's summary of progressive thinking, "And if you disagree with me, you're a racist homophobe who wears mink."

Although it seems like silly semantics, to me it is the start of a serious conversation. The beginning of dialogue.

No, it's an attempt to avoid serious discussion. I goes along the lines, "If you agree that eight-year-olds should not be allowed to bring machine guns to school then you have agreed to the principle of gun control. "That's as false as supposing that libel laws agree to principle of banning free speech. In either case it isn't about the amount of control, it is about the purpose and effect of controls.

If you agree that some form of gun control is acceptable, then we can have a discussion of what form. The conversation that I've seen from many who seem to fetishism either the second amendment or guns is along the lines of "Obama's thugs (or "liberals") are trying to take away our guns." Well that is just BS.

Obama's motives are irrelevant. The debate ought to be about what gun control would accomplish. Mexico has a complete ban on private ownership of guns. How well is that working? Switzerland has machine guns in 40% of households, with no problems at all. So what type of control do you propose, and what do claim it would accomplish. I oppose the Feinstein assault weapon ban, the ban on magazine size, and the new proposed requirement for liability insurance on guns. (Twice as many people are killed with hammers than with rifles in the U.S. each year, so should we have a liability insurance requirement for hammers?) I favor strong enforcement of existing laws to prevent sales to felons and mental cases. I favor having trained armed guards in schools, and concealed carry based up desire (not government approved need) subject to a training requirement.

Every sane person supports some limitation on private ownership of weapons. If we agree on that, and accept that as a premise, then yes we could have a debate.

Yeah, and if you disagree with me then you are a racist homophobe who wears mink.

Would you like to try your opening claim and defend, "Anyone who believes in a Constitutional right to self-defense has a insane fetish for the Second Amendment."? You understand the Supreme court is on the insane fetish side.
APB
Posts: 267
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2013 10:56:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/7/2013 6:18:10 PM, DanT wrote:
At 4/7/2013 5:39:16 PM, APB wrote:
At 4/7/2013 4:48:22 PM, proglib wrote:
At 4/7/2013 4:34:10 PM, APB wrote:
At 4/7/2013 12:07:04 PM, proglib wrote:
If you want to debate this point, here is the link:

http://www.debate.org...

If you just want to discuss, have at it....

I would, but it won't let me accept.

@APB

The criteria are "insanely" difficult so that I don't end up debating a newb on a topic that could be considered "silly semantics" by a more experienced debater like Roy. [See above.]

Then you're shooting yourself in the foot, because you won't get a debate at all.

Pun intended?

No, but good spotting!
proglib
Posts: 391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2013 12:00:16 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/7/2013 10:56:56 PM, APB wrote:
At 4/7/2013 6:18:10 PM, DanT wrote:
At 4/7/2013 5:39:16 PM, APB wrote:
At 4/7/2013 4:48:22 PM, proglib wrote:
At 4/7/2013 4:34:10 PM, APB wrote:
At 4/7/2013 12:07:04 PM, proglib wrote:
If you want to debate this point, here is the link:

http://www.debate.org...

If you just want to discuss, have at it....

I would, but it won't let me accept.

@APB

The criteria are "insanely" difficult so that I don't end up debating a newb on a topic that could be considered "silly semantics" by a more experienced debater like Roy. [See above.]

Then you're shooting yourself in the foot, because you won't get a debate at all.

Pun intended?

No, but good spotting!

About now I feel like I shot myself in the nuts. ;q OUCH.

What I meant to get at is that the real question is which guns under which conditions, that no sane person thinks that every person should be allowed to have every hand held weapon possible.

I may be wrong. There may be (relatively--it's all relative) sane people who believe that there should be no laws restricting the ownership of weapons, including machine guns, rocket launchers, etc.
"I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.* And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue." Barry Goldwater
*Except in a democracy it might lose you an election.

http://unitedwegovern.org...
APB
Posts: 267
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2013 12:25:49 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/8/2013 12:00:16 AM, proglib wrote:
At 4/7/2013 10:56:56 PM, APB wrote:
At 4/7/2013 6:18:10 PM, DanT wrote:
At 4/7/2013 5:39:16 PM, APB wrote:
At 4/7/2013 4:48:22 PM, proglib wrote:
At 4/7/2013 4:34:10 PM, APB wrote:
At 4/7/2013 12:07:04 PM, proglib wrote:
If you want to debate this point, here is the link:

http://www.debate.org...

If you just want to discuss, have at it....

I would, but it won't let me accept.

@APB

The criteria are "insanely" difficult so that I don't end up debating a newb on a topic that could be considered "silly semantics" by a more experienced debater like Roy. [See above.]

Then you're shooting yourself in the foot, because you won't get a debate at all.

Pun intended?

No, but good spotting!

About now I feel like I shot myself in the nuts. ;q OUCH.

What I meant to get at is that the real question is which guns under which conditions, that no sane person thinks that every person should be allowed to have every hand held weapon possible.

I may be wrong. There may be (relatively--it's all relative) sane people who believe that there should be no laws restricting the ownership of weapons, including machine guns, rocket launchers, etc.

Gun control isn't about banning all guns, it's about banning everybody else's guns. The USA doesn't want North Korea to have nukes because of self-interest, not ethics.
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2013 6:53:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/7/2013 8:22:11 PM, Citrakayah wrote:
At 4/7/2013 7:29:20 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
That won't change anything. There are entire governments that are seeking to implement nuclear weapons- and failing. The notion that if nukes were legalized that every single person would have them is absurd. In fact, I would contend that the only people who would be able to purchase them would be billionaires, from whom the danger is null.

Oh really?

I think most people who are billionaires are smart enough to realize that they can't take over the world simply because they have nukes, and that it wouldn't be in their best interest to do so anyways. And those that aren't smart are too dumb to care.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
Citrakayah
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2013 7:01:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/7/2013 8:24:58 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
We should pass a couple regulations disallowing the simultaneous ownership of volcanoes, long-haired cats, and nuclear weapons, just to avoid tempting fate.

I am pretty sure that that would be one of the few things Congress might actually pass unanimously...

At 4/8/2013 6:53:45 PM, OberHerr wrote:
I think most people who are billionaires are smart enough to realize that they can't take over the world simply because they have nukes, and that it wouldn't be in their best interest to do so anyways. And those that aren't smart are too dumb to care.

Actually, I'm worried about a billionaire with a nuke eventually becoming demented or having a psychotic break and launching it.
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2013 7:10:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/8/2013 7:01:53 PM, Citrakayah wrote:
At 4/7/2013 8:24:58 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
We should pass a couple regulations disallowing the simultaneous ownership of volcanoes, long-haired cats, and nuclear weapons, just to avoid tempting fate.

I am pretty sure that that would be one of the few things Congress might actually pass unanimously...


Doubt it. Someone would say no out of spite of someone else.

At 4/8/2013 6:53:45 PM, OberHerr wrote:
I think most people who are billionaires are smart enough to realize that they can't take over the world simply because they have nukes, and that it wouldn't be in their best interest to do so anyways. And those that aren't smart are too dumb to care.

Actually, I'm worried about a billionaire with a nuke eventually becoming demented or having a psychotic break and launching it.

Eh, I don't think so. While I'm no proponent of people having personal nukes, I doubt it would become a James Bond situation.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
proglib
Posts: 391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2013 10:47:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
DanT and I are debating this topic (more or less):

http://www.debate.org...

Gawking and kibitzing, anyone? XD
"I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.* And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue." Barry Goldwater
*Except in a democracy it might lose you an election.

http://unitedwegovern.org...