Originally posted by Joel
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Civics 101 Guidelines
Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less
Mass Shooting Las Vegas...
Collapse
X
-
Last edited by JimL; 10-13-2017, 01:18 PM.
-
Originally posted by Zymologist View PostOk, one question comes to mind. How many armed men are you willing to send to his home to ensure compliance? Assuming he's a gun owner, and accepting for the sake of argument that he's irresponsible and therefore should "not be allowed" to own guns, what are you willing to do to correct this? Should the armed men be allowed to shoot on sight (due to his dangerous, unpredictable, and violent nature, obviously)?
You guys keep arguing that gun owners are largely responsible - okay, if so, then they are responsible for the weapons in their possession - and to KEEP those weapons in their possession until legally disposed of. Unless you really want to argue that felons and lunatic should be allowed to purchase and own guns, then this is a perfectly reasonable requirement. Joel is arguing that guns are not a special case when in fact they already are - and cannot be purchased legally without permit. It undermines the permit laws (which is his wish) to allow gun owners a free pass on negligent possession.
A gun safe is not an unreasonable requirement. Using same when the weapon is not on your person/under your direct supervision is also not an unreasonable requirement."He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot
"Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman
My Personal Blog
My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)
Quill Sword
Comment
-
Originally posted by Teallaura View PostThe Court has the constitutional responsibility (so it claimed in Marbury v Madison).
You not agreeing doesn't make them wrong.
That early Courts (note the capital C, please) held that states could in fact regulate guns and that subsequent Federal law has been allowed to regulate guns completely undercuts the 'regulation is infringement' nonsense.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Zymologist View PostI don't think this is a fair response. This kind of crap is why I don't take Civics seriously--Joel is one of the most patient posters on here."He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot
"Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman
My Personal Blog
My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)
Quill Sword
Comment
-
Originally posted by Joel View Post"so it claimed". Thus a circular argument....
The Court is the final arbiter. Has been since Marbury v Madison. Arguments can be made that the Court erred - but disregarding all the case law makes for an extremely poor argument for error."He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot
"Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman
My Personal Blog
My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)
Quill Sword
Comment
-
Originally posted by Teallaura View PostActually, yes, in certain circumstances. A kid, not your own, who manages to take your car because you left it running, has committed theft and you are very much liable. Attractive nuisance.
And yes, there are some laws on the books - I was asked how I would improve the law and gave my answer. Greater liability usually results in greater care.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Teallaura View PostParallel, not analogous. And it would depend on the circumstances - if you made the theft attractive, the courts very well might allow it.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Joel View Post"no law" means: some laws; "shall not be infringed" means: may be infringed a good deal; "interstate commerce" means anything at all, including things that are neither interstate nor commerce; involuntary servitude "shall not exist" means the government may require involuntary servitude if they want, etc. Rather blatant contradictions.
As for "they get the last word," that's a thing because they claimed that that is so!
So that's a circular argument.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparko View PostI totally agree with having stronger penalties but not going crazy. If someone breaks into your house or car and steals your gun, that is not your fault. But yeah if a kid gets a hold of your gun laying around the house, then yeah you should be responsible. In fact as I said, you ARE. It is already the law."He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot
"Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman
My Personal Blog
My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)
Quill Sword
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparko View PostThere is no such thing as an attractive theft. An attractive nuisance is something like leaving a gun out for a kid to find, or a swimming pool without a fence. But you can't make something "attractive" to a thief. They are already "attracted" to your stuff, that's why they are stealing it. And even if you leave your door unlocked, that is not an invitation for someone to steal from you."He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot
"Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman
My Personal Blog
My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)
Quill Sword
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostBut there are considerations to take into account when interpreting the Constitution such as the state of affairs at the time when it was written. The Founders had no idea concerning the weaponry of the future, so, that the peoples right to bear muskets "shall not be infringed" still holds holds today. You could amend the Constitution in order to correct for the imprecise language due the Founders ignorance, but the courts I believe found that unnecessary, you do have a right to bear arms, but they obviously didn't have ground to air missiles in mind at the time of the writing.
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post479011
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostBut there are considerations to take into account when interpreting the Constitution such as the state of affairs at the time when it was written. The Founders had no idea concerning the weaponry of the future, so, that the peoples right to bear muskets "shall not be infringed" still holds holds today. You could amend the Constitution in order to correct for the imprecise language due the Founders ignorance, but the courts I believe found that unnecessary, you do have a right to bear arms, but they obviously didn't have ground to air missiles in mind at the time of the writing.
Does that sound convincing to you?Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
sigpic
I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostBTW Jim, a musket was the most advanced firearm of the day,Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
sigpic
I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist
Comment
-
Originally posted by One Bad Pig View PostNot true, actually. Rifles were around, then, and those were more advanced. Rifles were a lot more expensive to produce, however, so infantrymen were typically armed with muskets until well into the 19th century anyway.Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by Ronson, Today, 08:45 AM
|
5 responses
50 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Ronson
Today, 03:01 PM
|
||
Started by Cow Poke, 05-03-2024, 01:19 PM
|
26 responses
205 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seanD
Today, 03:06 PM
|
||
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 05-03-2024, 12:23 PM
|
100 responses
422 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by alaskazimm
Today, 10:09 PM
|
||
Started by Cow Poke, 05-03-2024, 11:46 AM
|
21 responses
138 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Mountain Man
Yesterday, 06:52 AM
|
||
Started by seer, 05-03-2024, 04:37 AM
|
23 responses
115 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seanD
05-03-2024, 02:49 PM
|
Comment