Armed America

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

Just like those people who feel that there should be a limit to a person's freedom to own slaves, or a person's freedom to limit a woman's right to vote. The constitution changes with the times. Why isn't it time to be civilized and change gun rights? I'm not endorsing limiting all guns, just the ones predominntly used in crimes.

Illegal ones, mostly shotguns and revolvers? That is really going to bum-out all the trap shooters out there. It is a very popular hobby.

So, we stop making all shotguns and .38 revolvers, criminals are going to go "damn, we can't use our favorites any more... guess we'll just stop shooting now", is that it?

Keep in mind, making guns illegal will do nothing, people will still make them. Especially patriots.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

Why isn't it time to be civilized and change gun rights?

Because arbitrarily abrogating people's right to defend themselves isn't "civilized", and to call it that is begging the question.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by Elspode

Stating that she was unaware (i.e., "I didn't think") of such a statute isn't really spreading misinformation.

The misinformation was the claim that criminals could "walk into Wally World and plop down a few bucks" and buy a firearm. "I didn't think" was the excuse offered for spreading that misinformation after the fact.

The assertion was misinformed, and repeating it spreads it. That's pretty clearly "spreading misinformation".

Of course, were we talking about George Bush, I could scream "He's a liar!" and all the BushBashers would nod sagely. Here my much more limited claim was "Shawnee is spreading misinformation", and your response is "Not really". :-)

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

Is anyone here afraid of Russian nukes? Afraid of nuclear weapons getting into the hands of Al Qaeda? Afraid of North Korea getting nukes?

Do you really believe passing a law forbidding any of those would make any significant difference? None of the groups you cite seem to be shy about violating US law. And the same is true of domestic criminals.

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by MaggieL

Because arbitrarily abrogating people's right to defend themselves isn't "civilized", and to call it that is begging the question.

Speaking of, I saw this the other day, and it reminded me of you:

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

Speaking of, I saw this the other day, and it reminded me of you:

Misusing "begging the question" reminds me of grocer's apostrophes, "open all nite" signs, being unable to correctly use "affect" and "effect" or "loose" and "lose", or writing things like "for all intensive purposes".

That a usage is common doesn't make it correct. Claims that "the language is dynamic" are used too often to cover frank ignorance.

That some twit heard the phrase "begging the question" and assumed incorrectly that he knew what it meant doesn't actually create a new meaning identical with "raising the question".

Somehow I doubt we'd be better off using "petitio principii" in place of "begging the question".

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by MaggieL

Do you really believe passing a law forbidding any of those would make any significant difference? None of the groups you cite seem to be shy about violating US law. And the same is true of domestic criminals.

Nice feint. The question was: are you afraid of those things. Are you?

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by MaggieL

Because arbitrarily abrogating people's right to defend themselves isn't "civilized", and to call it that is begging the question.

Willingly becoming peaceful IS being civilized. Resolving conflict non-violently IS civilized.

[xoxoxoBruce]

civilization, culture with a relatively high degree of elaboration and technical development. The term civilization also designates that complex of cultural elements that first appeared in human history between 8,000 and 6,000 years ago. At that time, on the basis of agriculture, stock-raising, and metallurgy, intensive occupational specialization began to appear in the river valleys of SW Asia. Writing appeared, as well as urban centers that accommodated administrators, traders, and other specialists. The specific characteristics of civilization are: food production (plant and animal domestication), metallurgy, a high degree of occupational specialization, writing, and the growth of cities. Such characteristics originally emerged in several different parts of the prehistoric world: Mesopotamia, Egypt, China, India, the central Andes, and Mesoamerica. However, some civilizations did not have all of these characteristics (e.g., the Classic Maya had no metallurgy, and true writing apparently never emerged in central Mexico or the central Andes). Many anthropologists now focus on a political factor—the development of hierarchical administrative bureaucracies—as the critical characteristic of all civilizations.

Don't see anything about peace or lack of conflict. While you may find it desirable, it's not a part of being civilized.

[Aliantha]

Originally Posted by MaggieL

How do you identify loonies? Because they have a gun? Or because they just "look that way"?

I identify them as the ones trying to shoot innocent people.

[Aliantha]

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

Fear of a tool that is not being pointed at you is irrational... a car or pneumatic nail-gun is equally as dangerous as a gun (many of tools & poisons I have worked with are more dangerous than my guns), I don't see people freaking-out about them.
Irrational fear.

Anyone who isn't wary around nail guns should probably rethink their position. Those things can be very dangerous...by accident even.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

Willingly becoming peaceful IS being civilized. Resolving conflict non-violently IS civilized.

Your postiton is that it is uncivilized to defend yourself? I think that's nonsense. Me, I'm completely peaceful...except if attacked.

I'd like to see you "resolve conflict non-violently" with a mugger or a rapist. How quickly your facile platitudes would dissolve...

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by Aliantha

Anyone who isn't wary around nail guns should probably rethink their position. Those things can be very dangerous...by accident even.

There are habits of behavior that should be followed around guns, be the nail guns or otherwise. The same is true of aircraft on the ground, be they jets or propeller.

The dangerous area around a gun is the direction it would discharge if fired--"where it's pointed", which is why one is at pains to keep all guns pointed in a safe direction. With a jet you need to stay out of the intake area at the front and the exhaust. The arc of an aircraft propeller should be avoided, even if the engine is not operating.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by Aliantha

I identify them as the ones trying to shoot innocent people.

They may be loonies. Or they may simply be criminals.

There's a difference between insanity and ethical impairment.

[Aliantha]

And your point is?