As are you, I don’t doubt. But being free from such issues when you get a gun is no guarantee you will remain so.
You cannot use a cheap shot while simultaneously denying it. Yes, that is a cheap shot, and yes, you have cheapened yourself by using it. Am I afraid of what I might do had I a gun? Yes, to a limited degree. I have lost my temper on more than one occasion. If you can claim never to have done so, you are either a saint or a liar.
Gee, thanks for sparing my feelings in such a backhanded and underhanded way. Next time, don’t bother, I ain’t delicate, and you ain’t a threat if I were.
I don’t propose to burden him with that choice. Ask somebody else.
If this is how you support your arguments, counter arguments become superfluous. (Too fancy for you? Means you don’t need to…)
Anecdotal evidence your stock in trade, is it?
Well, Junior was having sex with Bubba’s wife, as well as his own. You might be ill advised to promote the summary execution of idiots. Just a thought.
Actually, I wasn’t sparing your feelings. I was saying that the aforementioned was the obvious response, and I was saying that I wasn’t going to use it. Of course you’re scared of your darker urges. That’s why they’re darker. Deal with them yourself.
Amazingly, that’s why I said Joe-Bob, not Junior. Lucy, you’re a dishonest debater.
Seriously. Think about what you’ve said today, because I was being honest, and you’re not.
So you’re in favor of the weak and elderly being able to buy extra votes? Or are you suggesting the government should give one free gun of the same kind to each and every citizen? Otherwise, you’re buying extra power, power which cannot be afforded by some. Undemocratic.
And this doesn’t even take into consideration the gun-training and licenses, both of which cost even more money.
Now, you’re still being dishonest, elucidator. You’re making strange and unusual leaps in logic, going from ‘guns make old people as strong as bullies’, to ‘and therefore old people should be able to buy more votes.’ You’re switching from physical condition to economic condition, which wasn’t a previous term of debate, claiming that financial reasons make owning guns undemocratic.
I’m not going to respond to this, except to point out your leaps, and your assumptions. Because everyone besides you can see how bizarre your logic is.
Please. That’s like claiming that someone who can’t get to a voting booth because they can’t afford a car or a bus ticket makes the whole system undemocratic.
Some people choose to exercise their rights, some people are better equipped than others to exercise their rights. That some others do not or cannot does not make it undemocratic.
Incidentally, the Constitution was initially ratified by 13 colonies/states, followed by 37 others, all of which required a vote. In addition, Congress and/or states can put an amendment up for a vote. Therefore, I think the Constitution is about as democratic as one can get. And what, pray tell, is enshrined in the Constitution? Imagine my surprise when I found out the right to bear arms was an amendment in the Bill of Rights. The second one, I think.
You’re right, actually. That’s exactly what I’m saying. Which is why we have programs and volunteers to help people to get to the voting booth if they can’t do it on their own. In an effort to make things more democratic.
Keep in mind I’m using “democratic” in it’s stricter sense, I don’t just mean “freedom” or “the american way” or whatever else politicians believe it to mean. I mean it in the sense of the unattainable ideal we work towards no matter how unattainable.
IOW, nature isn’t fair, which is why we have government, to provide the fairness that nature lacks.
To avoid the appearance of my other post in this thread being a hit and run, I’ll add a few quick comments. I typically avoid threads where it is clear that gun ownership, if people shoud have guns and related topics are going to be the primary discussion. I personally do not care for guns. I avoid being around them and do not allow them in my home. (policeman doing their job would be an exception, thankfully that has almost never come up) I also know that I am in a fairly distinct minority around the SDMB on this subject which is why I don’t get in those discussions.
When it comes up in threads that I am involved in, it is a touch disconcerting. Hence my prior post.
[hijack]
I take issue. Boy, do I take issue! In fact, I’m about three quarters the way to thinking you don’t really believe this, just badly worded. Of course access to our innate civil liberties has a bearing on whether or not we are faithful to our democratic principles, for the same reasons that poll taxes are obnoxious, plus any number of other impediments designed to prevent the “wrong sort” from sullying voting booths.
Voting rights are central to the Constitution, they are the spine, the vessel and the essence. Without voting rights and the ability to excercise them on* an equal footing *with all your fellow citizens, you got squat, democracy wise.
That one citizen must wait for hours to exercise the same right as his better advantaged fellow is putrid and poisonous. We ought to be ashamed. And we ought to do something about it. [/hijack]
Go back and reread your original claim. Not your modifications thereto, but the one in post #25, which I’ve quoted.
Regarding any other kind of weapon, I offer:
168 people died when the Alfred Murrah building was bombed in Oklahoma City.
6 were killed and 1042 injured when the WTC was bombed in 1993.
A 1990 arson fire at the Happy Land Social Club in NYC killed 87.
An arson fire killed 32 in 1973 at the Upstairs Bar in New Orleans.
The list could continue, but my point is that none of the above involved shooting of another by the perpetrator(s), which disproves your assertion.
Before you go off about the difficulty in fashioning explosive devices, do your research. Assuming you didn’t sleep through chemistry class, and can follow directions with proficiency needed to bake a cake, the ingredients and directions are available. Maybe you don’t want to let people carry matches, either.
Don’t hold your breath waiting for that apology, as it isn’t coming.
I said nothing about the “wrong sort”. Quit attempting to pin things on me that I didn’t say.
The bottom line is this: in every election there are people that opt out of the process. In every election there are people that claim that they are too busy to vote. In every election there are people that say that they cannot get to a polling place. The last case is certainly a travesty, but it does not cause the overall process or the results to be illegitimate.
The same goes with guns. Just because someone cannot exercise the right due to a lack of funds does not mean that the right is not available to them if they have the opportunity to exercise it. Just because some people opt out of exercising it it does not make the right illegitimate.
The Second Amendment, like everything else, is perfectly democratic. You can exercise it, ignore it, or vote with your feet and walk away. And again, it was ratified using a democratic process (over) 50 times.
You don’t have to like it, but you cannot say that it’s undemocratic, like your son is attempting to do.
Whoa, stretch! You’re slipping an assumption under the radar in stealth mode: that gun ownership is a “right” comparable to voting rights. That may be your assumption and you may cling to it as fiercely as you choose, but it is far from a universally accepted premise.
And by the way, whats with this?
Huh? What? Whatever moved you take assume that was a direct, personal reference? I mean, dude?
Is that how it works? I can deny recognition to a Constitutional amendment because it’s not universally accepted? Damn. Which one shall I ignore tomorrow?
What I said had nothing to do with disenfranchisement, and somehow you managed to bring that to the table. I was making it abundantly clear that those were your words, not mine, and that part of your uber-zealous response had nothing to do with what I had said in the post you were responding to.
Lucy, you’re debating dishonestly. I said why. You accuse me of slander. That makes you a dishonest debator.
For example: Is the right to vote enshrined in the Constitution? Is the right to keep arms enshrined in the constitution? And yet you claim they’re different. I suppose the right to associate is also different from the right to vote, the right to keep arms, and the right to not board soldiers in your home.
This just in: not everyone agrees that the 2nd Amendment’s concern with a well-ordered militia means that crazy Uncle Fred gets an assault weapon. I’ll give you a few minutes to absorb this startling news.
Take my word for it, or no. You have entirely and completely misunderstood the thrust of my argument. In order to be insulted by it, you would have had to.
I’ll give you some startling news: assault weapons have no definition. Enlighten me as to what an assault weapon is, if you please.
Cartooniverse, the irony burns. Here you are starting a thread about pro-gun hijacks, and against my better judgment I have engaged in the same behavior I despise. For that, sir, you have my sincere apologies.
Who was insulted? Not I. Again, you derive meaning when there was none. And, of course, for you to have posted what you did you totally missed the thrust of my argument.
Ah, what the hell. These arguments are exercises in futility anyway.