|
|
Post by Amaranth on Jun 29, 2011 11:31:26 GMT -5
(though now I'm tempted to poison someone with caffeine...ohhh Amaranth~) You rang? Also, sex is archaic, but we keep finding new ways to have it. Last week, I came up with a position called "The disgruntled turkey." Granted, it's not really a "spur of the moment" thing, since you need to make a trip to your local feed store.... |
|
|
|
Post by Shane for Wax on Jun 29, 2011 11:42:36 GMT -5
The point is, that the basis for banning (or even making legal) something thanks to opinion or anything of the sort is asinine. Just like people have the opinion that tv is bad for kids. That opinion has been around for years. Then there's the opinion that video games are bad. Or the opinion that Harry Potter leads kids to the devil. Everything has a light and a dark side to it. You can't simply ban something because you don't like it. That's being arbitrary. Nor can you ban something because of minority statistics. FALSE EQUIVALENCY FTW! I didn't log out of "Fundies Say the Darndest Things" and onto another site by accident, did I? My point is made either way. Sorry you can't see it. |
|
|
|
Post by canadian mojo on Jun 29, 2011 13:59:36 GMT -5
But I don't see where the guarantee of the right to bear arms actually had any measurable impact on how things played out here. I don't know, it kind of set the tone for the nations development so while the while the physical existence of private guns may not have played a significant role in any actual battles the idea of them may well have helped steer the country to where it is today. |
|
|
|
Post by SimSim on Jun 29, 2011 15:17:07 GMT -5
Without a doubt. However, that doesn't change the fact that the amendment wasn't a mistake and was needed at the time. And that doesn't change the fact that it's archaic and obsolete. Not to mention the number of clearly bug-fuck CRAZY folks* who own guns... * Nobody on this forum, far as I can tell. That has nothing to do with your assertion that the amendment was a mistake. I'm not sure it was needed. I'd buy that they felt it was needed, and that hasn't changed despite the considerably reduced significance of personal firearms in warfare. But I don't see where the guarantee of the right to bear arms actually had any measurable impact on how things played out here. I don't think you can measure it's impact. But that doesn't mean it wasn't needed. You need to understand the viewpoint of the people who were living at the time to understand why it was needed. The average person already assumed they had that right. In fact they did until the revolution, it was granted by the English Bill of Rights. It was needed politically. |
|
|
|
Post by Amaranth on Jun 29, 2011 19:39:07 GMT -5
My point is made either way. Sorry you can't see it. Your point is a fundy copout. Sorry you can't see it. Most fundies can't. PROTIP: If you have to resort to false equivalency to "make your point," there's probably a critical flaw in your point. |
|
|
|
Post by Shane for Wax on Jun 29, 2011 19:55:33 GMT -5
My point is made either way. Sorry you can't see it. Your point is a fundy copout. Sorry you can't see it. Most fundies can't. PROTIP: If you have to resort to false equivalency to "make your point," there's probably a critical flaw in your point. Is there really? Hmm. *shrugs* My comparisons weren't even the crux of the post. But hey, whatever. We've had this whole argument before and it really gets tiring to argue the same thing over and over. |
|
|
|
Post by Amaranth on Jun 29, 2011 20:14:30 GMT -5
Is there really? Hmm. *shrugs* My comparisons weren't even the crux of the post. But hey, whatever. We've had this whole argument before and it really gets tiring to argue the same thing over and over. The crux of your argument still being a copout. Funny how that works. But seriously, if you can't make assertions like this without crumpling into a passive-agressive ball when they're scrutnised, save everyone the aggravation and don't say them in the first place. I've had enough people give me the "*shrug* copout" routine this week and I am reeeeeally sick of it right now. You're ducking because you know your argument is shit, you just don't want to not defend your gris-gris. I get it. Every time you "defend" guns, I get more and more the impression you are a gun nut. Not because of your strawman claim that it means you've fired a gun (I can fire, clean, maintain and so on a firearm), but because everytime guns come up, you end up with one consistent argument: WAAAAAARGARBL! This time it's "Harry Potter" and "everything has good and bad!" Next time? God knows. It always comes back to soft "logical" points like that, though. Me? I'm fine with guns. I live in a state with two gun laws, and I haven't even gone so far as to desire to change that. When our crime rate rivals that of, say, Mars, I might reconsider. Think about it. When you actually have some logic to add, not copouts and fundie kneejerking, you should try adding it. Until then, maybe not making bad assertions then backing away from them. |
|
|
|
Post by Shane for Wax on Jun 29, 2011 20:42:07 GMT -5
You're so right. I'm a gun nut who wants better gun control. Yup. How does that work?
I have said it multiple times before: guns have their place. People need better education for guns. But it is not the gun's fault if someone does something stupid with them. How much better can I explain it to you? I thought it was pretty logical. It is also logical to state that wanting something banned because of its potential to do harm is a really stupid reason to ban something.
But you really want to know why I'm ducking out? Because I'm tired of your shit attitude. And I really don't feel like getting into a flame war. I'm sick, tired, and really not in the best of places right now. Maybe when you can actually make a post that isn't acidic or completely off-base for the topic of discussion will I want to discuss something with you.
Until then, I will refrain from it because if I continue I will end up flaming outside of F and B and I don't feel like giving you your own little topic.
So yeah. Too bad you haven't noticed that when I duck out it means I can feel myself on the verge of really screwing up by throwing out insults instead of argument bullet points.
|
|
|
|
Post by dasfuchs on Jun 29, 2011 22:30:42 GMT -5
I'm not sure it was needed. I'd buy that they felt it was needed, and that hasn't changed despite the considerably reduced significance of personal firearms in warfare. But I don't see where the guarantee of the right to bear arms actually had any measurable impact on how things played out here. Given that at the time the military was mostly militia, yes, they felt it was needed. The only time the US really had an army was in war, so if something went down, the militia was to be the first step |
|
|
|
Post by dasfuchs on Jun 29, 2011 22:32:04 GMT -5
Without a doubt. However, that doesn't change the fact that the amendment wasn't a mistake and was needed at the time. And that doesn't change the fact that it's archaic and obsolete. Not to mention the number of clearly bug-fuck CRAZY folks* who own guns... * Nobody on this forum, far as I can tell. I will state this with 100% truth, I'm more worried about batshit crazy people flying around with lead foots in cars than I am guns |
|
|
|
Post by Mlle Antéchrist on Jun 30, 2011 1:12:58 GMT -5
If taken as a guarantee of the right to protect yourself from harm, including government persecution, through the use of weapons, the second amendment is fine, but the trouble begins when people focus too much on the "weapons" part, and not enough on the "defending yourself" portion.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Zachski on Jun 30, 2011 15:15:58 GMT -5
And that doesn't change the fact that it's archaic and obsolete. Not to mention the number of clearly bug-fuck CRAZY folks* who own guns... * Nobody on this forum, far as I can tell. I will state this with 100% truth, I'm more worried about batshit crazy people flying around with lead foots in cars than I am guns This |
|
