Archive

The CT shooting and gun control

  • LJ
    justincredible;1382185 wrote:Don't you know that semi-auto rifles can shoot down planes and blow up railroads?!?!

    /Jesse Jackson'd
    The barrel shroud creates that particular attribute
  • justincredible
    LJ;1382188 wrote:The barrel shroud creates that particular attribute
    Man, I thought it was the pistol grip. I really have a lot to learn.
  • O-Trap
    justincredible;1382194 wrote:Man, I thought it was the pistol grip. I really have a lot to learn.
    I thought it was because they all have 400,000 round clips.
  • FatHobbit
    justincredible;1382194 wrote:Man, I thought it was the pistol grip. I really have a lot to learn.
    Not the bayonet?
  • justincredible
    O-Trap;1382196 wrote:I thought it was because they all have 400,000 round clips.
    True, and with an unlimited number of bullets firing with each trigger pull you're going to do some major damage.
  • justincredible
    FatHobbit;1382197 wrote:Not the bayonette?
    Don't be ridiculous, that's just a big knife. :)
  • BoatShoes
    FatHobbit;1382180 wrote:Do you think the civil war was really about ending slavery? I would say the end of slavery was more of a happy side effect.

    Edit - I do think slavery played a part in the civil war, but I don't think it was as cut and dry as the Noble North riding in to save all of the slaves from the wicked Southerners.
    The Civil War was about slavery. Every other excuse is window dressing and revisionist history by those sympathetic to the South.

    The Vice President of the Confederacy, Alexander Stevens, (Played by Jackie Earle Haley in Lincoln) laid it out clearly for all to see in the Cornerstone Speech just before the war started.
    "The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution.

    [INDENT]Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the "storm came and the wind blew."
    Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science. It has been so even amongst us..."

    [/INDENT]
  • FatHobbit
    BoatShoes;1382206 wrote:The Civil War was about slavery. Every other excuse is window dressing and revisionist history by those sympathetic to the South.

    The Vice President of the Confederacy, Alexander Stevens, (Played by Jackie Earle Haley in Lincoln) laid it out clearly for all to see in the Cornerstone Speech just before the war started.
    I realize I steered us down the path, but I do not wish to turn a thread about gun control into a thread about why the civil war started. :)
  • LJ
    Start a thread about the Civil War if you want to discuss it's history. Any posts from here on out will be removed. Beyond that, infractions.
  • BoatShoes
    Well, to carry on with the original analogy....that sometimes it is worth going through great pains to achieve a just end...

    In the case of the civil war...it is clear that the enslavement of African-Americans brought great prosperity to the south...that is to say that it had a high amount of objective utility and brought forth objective value and wealth to the south....even if it was morally wrong.

    Guns, on the other hand...it's hard to say what objective value guns provide given that other rich countries have not been overrun with tyranny or crime in their absence.

    considering the amount of carnage that people bring forth with guns....and their marginal objective utility or value...it could be the case that, like slavery, it's worth the significant hall and effort to eliminate them.
  • LJ
    AGAIN

    Start a thread about the Civil War if you want to discuss it's history. Any posts from here on out will be removed. Beyond that, infractions.
  • QuakerOats
    BoatShoes;1382175 wrote:You don't think it's desirable to reduce gun violence/deaths in the united states which have the highest amount per capita of all industrialized nations...on par with some "third-world" nations?
    Have the gun control laws in Chicago ended gun violence?

    Shall we continue with this idiotic debate?
  • Tiernan
    QuakerOats;1382270 wrote:Have the gun control laws in Chicago ended gun violence?

    Shall we continue with this idiotic debate?
    Yes. because not to at least try to reduce gun violence would be the signal of the end of a moral society. Don't know if "gun control" is the answer but I do know the only way to find out is through debate.
  • BoatShoes
    LJ;1382259 wrote:AGAIN

    Start a thread about the Civil War if you want to discuss it's history. Any posts from here on out will be removed. Beyond that, infractions.
    :rolleyes: That was totally illegitimate...That post was NOT about the facts of that particular time in history.

    It was about the idea of "when is it worth long slogs/overcoming tough obstacles" for a just end which is what originally brought the subject up....
  • BoatShoes
    QuakerOats;1382270 wrote:Have the gun control laws in Chicago ended gun violence?

    Shall we continue with this idiotic debate?
    This is recovered while you must've been on hiatus....gun control on a state by state level is obviously ineffective. When you can cross into Gary, Indiana and get any gun you want and the federal constitution guarantees you a fundamental right to travel into Illinois.
  • LJ
    BoatShoes;1382278 wrote::rolleyes: That was totally illegitimate...That post was NOT about the facts of that particular time in history.

    It was about the idea of "when is it worth long slogs/overcoming tough obstacles" for a just end which is what originally brought the subject up....

    You want to discuss it, start a thread about it. Period
  • sleeper
    BoatShoes;1382278 wrote::rolleyes: That was totally illegitimate...That post was NOT about the facts of that particular time in history.

    It was about the idea of "when is it worth long slogs/overcoming tough obstacles" for a just end which is what originally brought the subject up....
    The mods need to assert their own power. Only they are allowed to go off topic.
  • Con_Alma
    BoatShoes;1382176 wrote:Some is NOT EQUAL to ALL but is > Zero. Most liberals seem to think that the proposals put forth would have at least some net benefit.
    What does a liberal vs conservative have to do with my statements? It was opinion you requested and why.
  • QuakerOats
    We have devalued human life in this country, mainly because of liberals, or liberal policy. It began with the murdering of millions of unborn children which continues unabated, and continued to worsen as we removed all references to God in school and eliminated moral teachings and consience formation, and replaced much of that with numbing video game violence foisted upon the youth by Hollywood (liberals). Today, for many radicals, the earth and animals have a higher standing than human beings.

    It is a national travesty, and most likely incorrectable, unless we go back to respecting all human life and publicly work to develop and form the individual conscience to respect and honor human life. The change must come this way, from within, not from assinine politicians and government tyrants trying to disarm The People.
  • BoatShoes
    Con_Alma;1382295 wrote:What does a liberal vs conservative have to do with my statements? It was opinion you requested and why.
    Because liberals would patently refute your claim that it wasn't about controlling gun violence and that it's primarily about legacy.
  • QuakerOats
    BoatShoes;1382285 wrote:This is recovered while you must've been on hiatus....gun control on a state by state level is obviously ineffective. When you can cross into Gary, Indiana and get any gun you want and the federal constitution guarantees you a fundamental right to travel into Illinois.

    And that is why you think these gangbangers are killing people, wow. And your vote still counts as much as the sane.
  • BoatShoes
    LJ;1382288 wrote:You want to discuss it, start a thread about it. Period
    The subject matter post you deleted was about why you might pursue gun control in the face of long odds and could not be reasonably understood to be primarily about the topic you have deemed off limits in this thread. I would not have just violated the rule right after you made the rule.
  • LJ
    BoatShoes;1382327 wrote:The subject matter post you deleted was about why you might pursue gun control in the face of long odds and could not be reasonably understood to be primarily about the topic you have deemed off limits in this thread. I would not have just violated the rule right after you made the rule.
    Move on or get thread banned. I said anymore posts about the civil war will be removed, you started with "In the case of the civil war.". I'm not going to let a good thread with over 500 posts devolve into a thread about the Civil War.
  • BoatShoes
    QuakerOats;1382317 wrote:We have devalued human life in this country, mainly because of liberals, or liberal policy. It began with the murdering of millions of unborn children which continues unabated, and continued to worsen as we removed all references to God in school and eliminated moral teachings and consience formation, and replaced much of that with numbing video game violence foisted upon the youth by Hollywood (liberals). Today, for many radicals, the earth and animals have a higher standing than human beings.

    It is a national travesty, and most likely incorrectable, unless we go back to respecting all human life and publicly work to develop and form the individual conscience to respect and honor human life. The change must come this way, from within, not from assinine politicians and government tyrants trying to disarm The People.
    What do you know crime has actually steadily been on the decline as the country has become more secular,, since Roe v. Wade was past and environmental regulations took lead out of gasoline. Now if only liberals could achieve their policy goals as it relates to gun violence on a national level we might reduce gun violence too :thumbup:
  • BoatShoes
    QuakerOats;1382326 wrote:And that is why you think these gangbangers are killing people, wow. And your vote still counts as much as the sane.
    Chicago gangbangers can easily get guns in Indiana or that have freely traveled into Chicago from Indiana. Seems like it should not be in dispute.