A Gun control solution - perhaps

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Quantum Quack, Mar 7, 2018.

  1. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Apathetic perhaps, until there is a call to arms by the NRA when one of the amendments "appears" to be threatened.
    The reality is that it is only needed a perception of threat and bingo you have a revolt. Such a sensitive issue this apparently is.

    I am unconvinced that iceaura is the radical you imply. From what I have read his mantra is "the political reality", removing political idealism so as to actually achieve some real progress.
    Perhaps I will be proven mistaken... perhaps not.

    The issue facing you guys can be expressed as :
    "Any threat to the 2nd amendment will fail" because it inspires enormous fear (paranoia) of potentially oppressive future governance.
    Strategically, therefore, threatening the constitution is doomed to failure.

    Placing any regulation on Guns can be seen as an action leading to the potential of oppressive future governance. Therefore it invokes the 2nd. and a subsequent and consequential call to protect it.

    This appears to me, as an outsider, to be the political reality. One that needs to be accommodated first before any progress will be made constitutionally.

    Does iceaura agree? I don't know.

    We are left with the conundrum of responsibility for the shooting in Florida ( 17 deaths )

    All parties carry a degree of responsibility and not just the shooter.

    Even sending your kids to a school in the USA knowing the potential, garners a certain responsibility for the subsequent possible death of that child. Expecting a safe environment when this is and has never actually been the case is irresponsible. A state of self delusion and buck passing.

    A possible solution is that the ones that are preventing change needed to be made responsible for the outcomes of that prevention and I would suggest that the NRA be lobbied to find a solution to a gun crisis that is in the main due to their reluctance to allow reasonable controls on the sale and ownership of firearms.
    • Let the NRA invoke the 2nd Amendment, due to their own pursuit in finding a solution as to why their own children (those of the NRA) are facing potential death every time they go to school generates.
    • Let them deal with the obvious ramifications and human cost of their blind devotion to an amendment that is based on paranoia to start with.

    Alternatively ...send all the kids to Australia for their educations...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Ultimately Cheaper and less life threatening. No guns allowed.
    Last edited: Mar 24, 2018
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Here's the curiosity:
    It seems most likely that none of the mass shooters was a member of the NRA.

    When you speak of paranoia, you need look no further than the founding fathers who were anti-federalist.

    (Mel Gibson had a line in a movie @ "I would rather have one tyrant a thousand miles away than a thousand tyrants one mile away")
    If you would mess with one of the first 10 amendments.
    Examine the first:
    "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion ... "

    Many people have attacked that part of that amendment----------and none have prevailed.
    In some religions, you can still cut the head off of a live chicken, dance with rattle snakes, or sacrifice a goat, or smoke marijuana, or take peyote etc.etc.etc. as part of a religious ceremony.

    Do you have a problem with that one?
    If you can conceive of the 2nd amendment as a stand alone item------------you kinda miss the point------------all of the amendments and constitution are a single body of laws and regulations. In no small part, they were designed to protect the citizens from the whim of the mob. Much like e pluribus unum. they all belong together.

    This is really old stuff ... and Jesus said to them: “Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation, and every city or house divided against itself will not stand..."
    Last edited: Mar 24, 2018
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. pjdude1219 The biscuit has risen Valued Senior Member

    actually snake handling is outlawed in most appalachian states except west virginia. and most snake handling churches could probably be busted for neglect for the poor snakes if people actually wanted to house them. they use poor husbandary for them which plays a role in them getting away with it( not getting bit). that and the snakes become acclimated to being held.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    You are correct
    That does not seem to have stopped the practice
    Do you know of any prosecutions concerning the practitioners?
  8. pjdude1219 The biscuit has risen Valued Senior Member

    there is a handful mostly hit with charges of owning a venomous animal without a permit. usually the authorities only get involved if they hand them to children. i believe for the most part it is viewed that the snakes will handle justice on their own. and they don't wish to make martyrs of them. they mostly only get arrested if the cops are called on them usually do to a death. the biggest crack down was in 2008 with operation twice shy which saw 10 people get arrested. like i said the cops usually leave them alone as people dumb enough to harrass venomous snakes usually end up punished via snake. also people are stupid. though i would like to say clearly their faith cant be that great if they typically use species known for the docile nature they know what they are doing is ill advised
  9. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member


    You wrote what you wrote, and all you can do is say things like, "How illiterate", and so forth, but you can't actually argue your point.

    Yeah, you know, you could always try, after these years, some manner of explanation instead of petulant insistence on observable untruth.

    For instance, I linked↑ to your original post↗; I do owe a correction, though, having noted #3495188/343↗, when the proper attribution is #3492757/200↗; my apologies for the error, which would, admittedly, have been avoided if you were honest, and not so determined to lie about what you wrote, as you did on 14 December 2017, responding:

    Followed by a quote from you. That from the lecturer on irony?
    Your posts really are, as you illustrate by quoting not me but yourself, pretty much as worst described.

    So when you say you did not attribute a post to me, you are lying.

    You lied, Iceaura, so please do remember that what you consider politically threatening, or shitheaded rhetoric and slipshod reasoning, is a standard asserted in the context of one who needs to blame his own posts on other people in order to duck out. That is to say, your is an assessment fashioned in dishonesty and cowardice.

    You wrote a post. The post became relevant down the line because of its intersection with particular issues. You denied the post and tried to attribute it to others—("Followed by a quote from you"; "by quoting not me but yourself")—and that was as obvious and clear as day.

    PJdude↑ isn't wrong about your immoderate position; the expanded version↑ rings familiarly, too. And while I'm as certain as today's sunlight that you will find plenty to dispute in his summary, it just seems worth noting that the record you leave creates certain impressions about how you address the issues, so I find myself reiterating that this is one of a couple issues where you just switch into automatic mode and start shoveling out the unbelievable, issues about which you appear to fall back to an internal narrative that only makes sense to you.


    This comes back to what definitions are required by an unreliable arbiter—

    —and you need to #startmakingsense. As I said, an internal narrative that only makes sense to you. That is, I'm quite certain that ranting bit means something to you, but the fact remains that whether or not one can be said to "have no answer" depends entirely on matters of definitions. Your demand, for instance, in #44↑

    Name the first. Name the first reasonable and sound gun control regulation that actually and necessarily ran foul of the 2nd Amendment. Not via NRA agitprop - they're raving extremists in the service of amoral power, nuttier than a fruitcake, remember? - but in the sober assessment of people making sense.

    —relies entirely on your own internal narrative that ignores or invalidates anything anyone else says that fails to satisfy or properly assuage your aesthetics. For instance, you either ignore a court decision pertaining to the Second Amendment, or disqualify it from your amorphous standard of "reasonable and sound gun control regulation", which in turn points back to your exhortation on behalf of stalkers↗, because therein we find at least something about what you consider reasonable and sound.

    Do you have anything to offer other than the bitter conspiracist imaginings of a liar?

    There are certain things that happen to one's arguments when they roll to the conservative pitch. There is no mystery why people regard the Second Amendment as a question in this. I would ask you to think about something "Republicans" and "conservatives" do; it's a bizarre equivocation that does indeed have its place in societal noramlization presupposing "both-sides" rhetoric: After all these years of saying this is why we conservatives won't, why would anyone be wondering about this thing that we say is the reason why we conservatives won't? Too many reasonable people are going to refuse to grant political power to people who take us conservatives seriously enough to pretend the reasons we say we conservatives won't have anything to do with anything.

    And there comes a point at which people would very much like to take them seriously on that point, but as you're quite aware from witnessing discourse regarding other issues, the societal penchant for pretense of equivocation generally benefits the preservation of imbalance. Whatever your stake in preserving this particular status quo, people still notice when you start pandering and, thus, floundering, like the next two-bit gun cultist society does not seem to be willing to endure at the moment. Giving over to screeching kill-cult identity politicking is the sort of bad decision that costs our society more lives than war.
  10. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Of course they have. Polygamy, long a tenet of many Mormon sects, has been ruled illegal for example. It is illegal for (tax exempt) religions to endorse political candidates. The Supreme Court has ruled that the government can make laws against religions when there is a compelling public interest. America ranks about in the middle of countries with religious restricting per a recent Pew study.
    I don't have a problem with religious freedoms unless they harm the rest of the population - in which case religious practices can be regulated or proscribed. (Same way I feel about the second amendment.)
    So did the revocation of the 18th amendment invalidate some or all of the rest of them?
    sculptor likes this.
  11. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    No, I didn't.
    Which you continue to mistake - to the point of willful refusal to follow or comprehend. That is a psychological issue, and it's yours.
    For example:
    That makes no sense with respect to my posting here.
    And if it did, that question you asserted was "unanswerable" would have an immediate answer ready to your hand. So it makes no sense with respect to your posting either.
    It's an external argument, coldblooded and substantiated and perfectly sound.
    You are unable to deal with it - that's your problem.
    Mine don't - even acknowledging the slippery and dishonest denial you have set up in the term "conservative pitch". We all know what you intend to imply by "conservative pitch", ok, and it includes NRA media bs you have assigned to me, etc. So no weaseling about "conservative" or "pitch".
    With that noted: everything addressed to me, based on that presumption, is wrong. Mostly irrelevant, occasionally mistaken. And that, you already know - for sure: it's been explained to you.
    So - - - - you raised the question of integrity?
    And so my description of why that is, and the effects of it (including the "bothsides" jam your ridiculous slanders contribute to), is simply ordinary observation - and so far, completely accurate. You are behaving exactly as described.
    You keep posting that shit, and the question becomes "why"?

    You cannot hope to persuade in this fashion. You foul your cause. You have abandoned reason, and discussion, and significant aspects of reality, and what you have left is a power struggle - where you and the "other side" are mirroring collections of ravings and conspiracies and lunatic disproportions and weirdly irrational blitherings, neither of you with any indication of self-awareness, neither able to answer to reason.

    Nobody with any sense wants to grant political power to a faction of people who behave as you - and a loud fraction of gun control advocates - do in this matter. You present the reasonable with a difficult choice, in which one option is simply status quo. And so they split - and as is human nature, many for the status quo.

    The people who are wary of you guys are right to be so. That's your political problem.
    Last edited: Mar 24, 2018
  12. pjdude1219 The biscuit has risen Valued Senior Member

    No one assigned the NRAs bullshit to you princess you've repeated your self. like the idea the second amendment provides an individual right to a gun. if you don't want to be associated with the NRA bs quit fucking repeating it. why are you so pathologically dishonest on this topic. it like you have a compulsion to lie about shit. you the classic example of what wrong with the pro gun crowd you take a single fucking shred of responsibility for anything you've said or done. you repeat the ideas of extremists your freaking extremist its really quite simple and your childish whinying that how dare anyone hold you accountable for the price for your demands is asinine.
  13. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    It does.
    That's a plain fact. Assertions to the contrary are irrational, mistaken, ignorant, often simply illiterate - not serious.
    Do you want to bequeath the NRA sole possession of plain facts like that?

    Why do you base your gun control arguments on an unnecessary and flagrantly unreasonable denial of plain fact? Such irrational arguments engender mistrust - when combined with emotional rhetoric and insult and slander in place of even bogus reasoning, the mistrust becomes entrenched. Your endorsement of a political candidate, for example, is now a warning rather than a reassurance.
  14. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    The Iowa legislature has begun the process of having a constitutional convention to add the right keep and bear arms----we will then join the other 44 states whose constitutions already have that provision.
  15. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    More guns to choose from for a nutter means more kids die. Simple.
  16. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Right now the future of gun control is playing out as the students of the USA march in protest. Do they look like future gun owners?
    Perhaps the NRA have finally shot them selves in the foot. (with a semi automatic no doubt)
  17. pjdude1219 The biscuit has risen Valued Senior Member

    only if your piss ignorant of history like you are. sore ice no matter how many times you stamp your feet and repeat the lie it will not ever make it true. so you admit you agree with the extremist NRA belief that the second amendment was all about personal gun ownership? the NRA has never delved into facts. why don't you go learn about the revolt of cincanatti before you lecture me on facts. if your lie is the truth why did the leadership of the NRA get overthrown in 1977 to specificly push the idea the second amendment provided a individual right to a gun. simple because it didn't and they needed to create the lie. some before you tell my im ignorant go learn some fucking history and shut the fuck up.

    i don't i leave that to liars like your self. i base it on facts. and the fact is as one chief justice said the idea that the second amendment provides a individual right to a gun is the biggest fraud ever committed on the us people. as written the second amendment is impotent to prevent almost all gun control measures.
    once again the only thing that matters to you is protecting the gun owners toys. our lives are held hostage to your delusions. the only one irrational here is you ice steadfastly holding onto propaganda for reasons no one can figure the fuck out. do you even have an end game other that not giving a fuck your getting people killed? Me wanting the law to be followed properly is irrational that engenders mistrust while you sit on your worthless and defend people who threaten people with violence but that fucking rational and doesnt engender mistrust. quite frankly ice on this topic your borderline psychotic in your pathological twisting of information to suit your needs. frankly ice i really don't give a fuck what you think about my endorsement means, the opinions of liars with blood stained hands means nothing to me. you live in a fantasy world that protects violence and attacks peace. you've always come across to me as a useful crank with your delusional fear of government sadly with your decreasing grasp on reality to attack anyone who questions your ardent protection of a distorted view of the second amendment and irresponsible gun culture your usefullness is no more, your mere a crank and a dangerous one at that. there is always a price sadly you don't give a fuck about the costs of your beliefs. the blood of those dead in parkland is on your uncaring bloody hands because you feel the very idea of having to be fucking responsible with gun is too much to ask people. you've defended irresponsible gun behavior before and you'll do it again because a gun owners toy is more important to you than a child's life. there is always a price

    the price for my ideas is time and loss of convenience while making it harder criminals to get guns. the price of your ideas is easy access to guns for criminals and the blood of the innocent. who wants to pay less. thats the problem with people like you ice you don't give 2 fucks about the blood paid for ideals cause its not your being spilled. i'd say i wished you had to pay the price for your delusionals but unlike you i prefer when people's blood isn't shed. not that you'll see this way, people like you never seem able to take or understand taking responsibility for ones choices.
  18. pjdude1219 The biscuit has risen Valued Senior Member

    the cult of the gun finally has to face the one thing it could never silence with its thuggery; its victims.
    Quantum Quack likes this.
  19. Vociferous Registered Senior Member

    You seemed to prefer kids die rather than teachers.
  20. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    NRA Not Really Awake...
    Those kids are your future Vociferous.... they will determine whether the NRA lives or dies.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Go on... ask em ... should a teacher die first or the students die first...
    What do you think they would say...??

    And for sure the next school shooting is only going to make the issue even more problematic for the NRA, then the next and then the next until what happens?

    You'll probably have to change your username....
    Last edited: Mar 25, 2018
  21. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Just think, if the NRA remains complicit in the ongoing slaughter of USA students it could actually claim it is saving the 2nd amendment without addressing the issue of who it saving it for.

    The NRA is actually the greatest enemy of the 2nd amendment and will ultimately see it removed from the constitution and replaced with something a bit more rational, effective and benign.

    ie. the ability to force an elected government to the polls due to a "lack of confidence" could be one such replacement.
    Trump is inspiring that one....
    Last edited: Mar 25, 2018
  22. Bells Staff Member

    In which there were no threats, intended or posted. Yet you accuse me and others of something issuing threats.

    When queried, this is how you respond...
    You may not be an errand boy, but it is polite and somewhat expected that you back up your claims, particularly those pertaining to a threat.

    For example, you described this as a threat:

    My comment was in response to sculptor's ridiculous shoelaces comments that were downright stupid.

    So I will ask again, what is it about that quote do you view as being a threat? To whom? About what? Against whom? Against what?

    Is it an attempt to shut the opposition down?

    Because you seem to be resorting to that accusation quite a bit in this thread. Why?

    I'm sorry, your "observations", if one can call it that, has been to attempt to shut down anyone whom you know happens to favour gun control in some way, shape or form, and accuse us of being a threat to what, who, where, only you know, while claiming to argue for gun control, but abusing anyone you know is for gun control and parroting the NRA line, while saying you don't agree with them, and using frankly fence sitting words.

    You do get this, yes?

    The reason we seek clarification about your stance is not because you have been clear about it and we enjoy the thought of you typing some more, but because you have been so ambiguous (not to mention paranoid) about it all.

    It's as though you believe that only you can discuss gun control, but no one else. Why is that?

    When you start to accuse others of being a threat in this fashion, then that is dangerous rhetoric when it comes to this subject matter. That kind of rhetoric could see people viewing the hundreds of thousands of kids who marched as being a "threat" and I don't need to explain to you how that viewpoint and opinion can end. Particularly when taken in light of people who are willing to go above and beyond, while well armed, at anyone they believe could be a threat. I don't need to explain how some of these people respond (remember the guy who shot up a pizza parlor) towards others they believe could be a threat.



    I'll reiterate, no one here is threatening you or your right to own firearms. Using rhetoric and accusing others of threatening your rights, when no such thing has actually happened in this debate, is the kind of rubbish that leads others to actually threatening others they perceive to be a threat to their right to own firearms, in this case, it's kids. So if you are going to accuse others of issuing threats, you had better be able to explain your accusation, because it is your kind of rhetoric that is inciting others to actually issue death threats and in this instance, it's towards kids.
    Last edited: Mar 25, 2018
  23. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member


    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    March for our lives - 14 hours ago c/o abc

    Politicians take note: Your future voters are saying something
    Last edited: Mar 25, 2018

Share This Page