Have we become used to or immune to mass shootings? - Page 19

xoxoxoBruce · 05-22-2018, 08:49 PM

I know you're not joining the NRA, you don't need a card to stir shit.

sexobon · 05-22-2018, 09:05 PM

Q: Why do people stir shit?

A: Because it's there.

BigV · 05-23-2018, 12:01 AM

HM

You're just being trolled. You probably already know this. sexobon is just trying to wind you up, heedless of the illogic of his "argument". Saying you're too dumb to understand is a weak defense.

sexobon, you have no proof, are unable to prove your "justification" that the elimination of all guns at some indefinite point in the future is a good reason to do nothing now.

Happy Monkey · 05-23-2018, 11:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigV

HM

You're just being trolled. You probably already know this. sexobon is just trying to wind you up, heedless of the illogic of his "argument". Saying you're too dumb to understand is a weak defense.

I only respond when someone I'm responding to actually makes relevant claims. I usually delete the personal attacks or taunting when I quote someone. If there's nothing left, there's nothing to reply to.

sexobon · 05-23-2018, 06:26 PM

Tw, I bought you a gift membership in the NRA in your username. In around 10 - 11 months you may get a renewal notice at the Cellar email address in your profile contact info. Let me know when you get it and I'll pick up the tab. Don't say I never gave you anything.

sexobon · 05-27-2018, 09:34 AM

Sounded to me like he's saying pursuing an end result of maximum effectiveness doesn't necessarily justify using any and all means that might get one there.

How you took that to mean he doesn't want any background checks to be effective is something for psychoanalysts to figure out.

henry quirk · 05-27-2018, 04:37 PM

"So you're saying yes to background checks unless they are effective."

Nope.

##

"Sounded to me like he's saying pursuing an end result of maximum effectiveness doesn't necessarily justify using any and all means that might get one there."

Yep.

#

"How you took that to mean he doesn't want any background checks to be effective is something for psychoanalysts to figure out."

You know what Griff's doin' as well as I do. Like tw, Griff knows what I'm sayin', doesn't like what I'm sayin', can't refute what I'm sayin' philosophically, so he willfully misinterprets what I'm sayin'.

Standard horseshit.

sexobon · 05-27-2018, 06:22 PM

That's the way rights work. If it doesn't work that way, it's not a right, it's a privilege. If people want this right to be downgraded to a privilege, they can change the Constitution.

henry quirk · 05-27-2018, 08:33 PM

Griff,

You highlighted sumthin' of mine...

'I shouidn't have to 'prove' that I'm good to gun own; gov has to 'prove' in an obvious, demonstrable way why I'm not (and it has to do so without diggin' around in my drawers)'

...presumably as an evidence of this...

"So you're saying yes to background checks unless they are effective."

You just make my point for me.

I am presumed innocent till proven otherwise.

Proving me otherwise takes place within the confines of 'due process', meaning I can't be violated in person, in privacy, in property while being investigated for crime. And I can't be violated in person, in privacy, in property because one or more think me 'odd'. This includes a background check. My skivvies drawer may contain all manner of nastiness, some perhaps sufficient to disallow my purchasing a gun, BUT you can't look there without damned good reason (which has got to be more than 'he's odd'). The bar is set HIGH and the legit background check should, can, only dig through what's a matter of public record (which itself should be largely shallow).

So: it's not that I want ineffective background checks; it's that I accept, in a free nation peopled by free men and women, our employees (should) have extraordinarly limited power over us (far less than we [should] have over them).

Now, if you support relieving folks of privacy, support violating personhood, support removing or denying property based on what someone might do, well, then you march, lockstep with idiots like tw, along that road leading to 'politburo'.

Me, I'll be walkin', in a loose, relaxed way, in the opposite direction.

As I say up-thread: more safety, less liberty; more liberty, less safety.

It would be nice if a balance could be had, but I don't think that's possible.

henry quirk · 05-27-2018, 08:37 PM

"change the Constitution"

Plenty who want to, on both sides of the aisle.

Dumb motherfuckers ought to leave well enough alone.

Griff · 05-28-2018, 12:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sexobon

That's the way rights work. If it doesn't work that way, it's not a right, it's a privilege. If people want this right to be downgraded to a privilege, they can change the Constitution.

I'm actually sympathetic to the idea that amending the Constitution is the "Constitutional" way to go, however, that could be a more ham handed outcome where we lose a right than incremental changes with a dance between Congress and the Judiciary. We already have precedent for limitations.

Henry, what do you consider private? Is a conviction for a violent crime private? Is a history of severe mental illness private? Where do you draw the "drawers" line?

sexobon · 05-28-2018, 12:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Griff

I'm actually sympathetic to the idea that amending the Constitution is the "Constitutional" way to go, however, that could be a more ham handed outcome where we lose a right than incremental changes with a dance between Congress and the Judiciary. We already have precedent for limitations.

Mexico already does that dance via its Constitution and the right wasn't lost.

henry quirk · 05-28-2018, 12:56 PM

"Henry, what do you consider private?"

Anything and everything that isn't takin' money out of another's pocket, food off their table, or the shingles from the roof over their heads. In other words: If I'm not tangibly mucking around in their business, then 'my' business is none of 'their' business.

And: no, the possibility I 'might' muck around in their business tomorrow is not sufficient to justify them muckin' around in mine today.

#

"Is a conviction for a violent crime private?"

No, that is and should be a function of the public record (the trial is paid for with taxes and therefore is not strictly a private matter).

#

"Is a history of severe mental illness private?"

Yep, it's private till the afflicted stop mindin' their own business and keepin' their hands to themselves. And even then, that history should remain a private matter if the actions that got the afflicted in hot water are of the sort not demonstrably linked to their illness. Example: a glove box full of unpaid traffic tickets is not sufficient to violate patient/doctor privilege.

#

"Where do you draw the "drawers" line?"

Along the edges of my life (which, when not tangibly infringing on yours, is none of your business).

Griff · 06-23-2018, 08:50 AM

https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/...-2013.pdf/view

key findings page 7

xoxoxoBruce · 06-23-2018, 04:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Griff

https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/...-2013.pdf/view

key findings page 7

No real surprises there.

05-22-2018, 08:49 PM	#1
xoxoxoBruce The future is unwritten Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 71,105	I know you're not joining the NRA, you don't need a card to stir shit. __________________ The descent of man ~ Nixon, Friedman, Reagan, Trump.

05-23-2018, 12:01 AM	#3
BigV Goon Squad Leader Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Seattle Posts: 27,063	HM You're just being trolled. You probably already know this. sexobon is just trying to wind you up, heedless of the illogic of his "argument". Saying you're too dumb to understand is a weak defense. sexobon, you have no proof, are unable to prove your "justification" that the elimination of all guns at some indefinite point in the future is a good reason to do nothing now. __________________ Be Just and Fear Not.

06-23-2018, 08:50 AM	#14
Griff still says videotape Join Date: Feb 2001 Posts: 26,813	FBI Study https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/...-2013.pdf/view key findings page 7 __________________ If you would only recognize that life is hard, things would be so much easier for you. - Louis D. Brandeis

05-22-2018, 09:05 PM	#2
sexobon I love it when a plan comes together. Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 9,793	Q: Why do people stir shit? A: Because it's there.

05-23-2018, 06:26 PM	#5
sexobon I love it when a plan comes together. Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 9,793	Tw, I bought you a gift membership in the NRA in your username. In around 10 - 11 months you may get a renewal notice at the Cellar email address in your profile contact info. Let me know when you get it and I'll pick up the tab. Don't say I never gave you anything.

05-27-2018, 09:34 AM	#6
sexobon I love it when a plan comes together. Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 9,793	Sounded to me like he's saying pursuing an end result of maximum effectiveness doesn't necessarily justify using any and all means that might get one there. How you took that to mean he doesn't want any background checks to be effective is something for psychoanalysts to figure out.

05-27-2018, 04:37 PM	#7
henry quirk maskless: yesterday, today, tomorrow Join Date: Jan 2009 Posts: 2,162	"So you're saying yes to background checks unless they are effective." Nope. ## "Sounded to me like he's saying pursuing an end result of maximum effectiveness doesn't necessarily justify using any and all means that might get one there." Yep. # "How you took that to mean he doesn't want any background checks to be effective is something for psychoanalysts to figure out." You know what Griff's doin' as well as I do. Like tw, Griff knows what I'm sayin', doesn't like what I'm sayin', can't refute what I'm sayin' philosophically, so he willfully misinterprets what I'm sayin'. Standard horseshit.

05-27-2018, 06:22 PM	#8
sexobon I love it when a plan comes together. Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 9,793	That's the way rights work. If it doesn't work that way, it's not a right, it's a privilege. If people want this right to be downgraded to a privilege, they can change the Constitution.

05-27-2018, 08:33 PM	#9
henry quirk maskless: yesterday, today, tomorrow Join Date: Jan 2009 Posts: 2,162	Griff, You highlighted sumthin' of mine... 'I shouidn't have to 'prove' that I'm good to gun own; gov has to 'prove' in an obvious, demonstrable way why I'm not (and it has to do so without diggin' around in my drawers)' ...presumably as an evidence of this... "So you're saying yes to background checks unless they are effective." You just make my point for me. I am presumed innocent till proven otherwise. Proving me otherwise takes place within the confines of 'due process', meaning I can't be violated in person, in privacy, in property while being investigated for crime. And I can't be violated in person, in privacy, in property because one or more think me 'odd'. This includes a background check. My skivvies drawer may contain all manner of nastiness, some perhaps sufficient to disallow my purchasing a gun, BUT you can't look there without damned good reason (which has got to be more than 'he's odd'). The bar is set HIGH and the legit background check should, can, only dig through what's a matter of public record (which itself should be largely shallow). So: it's not that I want ineffective background checks; it's that I accept, in a free nation peopled by free men and women, our employees (should) have extraordinarly limited power over us (far less than we [should] have over them). Now, if you support relieving folks of privacy, support violating personhood, support removing or denying property based on what someone might do, well, then you march, lockstep with idiots like tw, along that road leading to 'politburo'. Me, I'll be walkin', in a loose, relaxed way, in the opposite direction. As I say up-thread: more safety, less liberty; more liberty, less safety. It would be nice if a balance could be had, but I don't think that's possible.

05-27-2018, 08:37 PM	#10
henry quirk maskless: yesterday, today, tomorrow Join Date: Jan 2009 Posts: 2,162	"change the Constitution" Plenty who want to, on both sides of the aisle. Dumb motherfuckers ought to leave well enough alone.

05-28-2018, 12:56 PM	#13
henry quirk maskless: yesterday, today, tomorrow Join Date: Jan 2009 Posts: 2,162	"Henry, what do you consider private?" Anything and everything that isn't takin' money out of another's pocket, food off their table, or the shingles from the roof over their heads. In other words: If I'm not tangibly mucking around in their business, then 'my' business is none of 'their' business. And: no, the possibility I 'might' muck around in their business tomorrow is not sufficient to justify them muckin' around in mine today. # "Is a conviction for a violent crime private?" No, that is and should be a function of the public record (the trial is paid for with taxes and therefore is not strictly a private matter). # "Is a history of severe mental illness private?" Yep, it's private till the afflicted stop mindin' their own business and keepin' their hands to themselves. And even then, that history should remain a private matter if the actions that got the afflicted in hot water are of the sort not demonstrably linked to their illness. Example: a glove box full of unpaid traffic tickets is not sufficient to violate patient/doctor privilege. # "Where do you draw the "drawers" line?" Along the edges of my life (which, when not tangibly infringing on yours, is none of your business).

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)