Gun control debate (merged)

#12,002
#12,002
luthervol said:
In no way honest? Really?
Someone earlier said something to the effect of: decreasing production increases demand which raises prices and that results in a limitation to some potential buyers which by definition would be an infringement.
I said the same results from safety regulations which are perfectly legal. So it is perfectly legal to infringe?
Click to expand...

It’s not honest on your part to argue these points as if we don’t already have these rights in place , and the restriction or limitation of them is ( by definition) infringement upon them . It you are given anything and you take away from that ( in any way ) you have infringed upon them . You are arguing from a point of opinion based on what you interpret it saying .
 
  • Like
Reactions: McDad
#12,003
#12,003
hog88 said:
There is a difference between feeling threatened and being threatened.
Click to expand...
Feeling threatened is a reaction to the perception of being threatened.
Is walking into a restaurant carrying two AR-15's more threatening than carrying one?
Is carrying one AR-15 more threatening than having a handgun in your hand?
Is walking into a restaurant carrying the gun in your hand more threatening than having it holstered?
Is having it visibly holstered more threatening than having it concealed?
Who decides?
 
  • Like
Reactions: McDad
#12,004
#12,004
NurseGoodVol said:
I think it was written by men who percieved that the heart of man can be dark. That power can corrupt and can get out of hand. Do we not still see this in powerful unchecked men today in unarmed populaces?
Click to expand...
I agree,
But, we also see it in powerful unchecked men today in the most heavily armed country in the history of the world.
I can think of no better example than you know who.
 
#12,005
#12,005
NurseGoodVol said:
Key word... Feel. If the person with the firearm hasn't brandished or threatened then it's on the person "feeling" to get over themselves.
Click to expand...
It always comes down to if the actions can be interpreted as threatening by a reasonable person.
Society will always ultimately make that determination.
 
#12,006
#12,006
luthervol said:
You can keep saying that but you know you are splitting hairs at best.
Who is actually hurt by a threat made on social media? Who determines what rises to the level of a threat? Is making someone rightfully or wrongly feel threatened criminal?
Who says porn displayed at McDonald's hurts children. Who decides what is porn (prohibited because of possible perceived harm) and what is not (freely allowed)?
Who decides what is classified information (which a free press is prohibited from reporting) and what is not? Who decides when there is a perceived possibility of harm by reporting information?
Click to expand...
You remember yesterday when you said society has determined to limit rights for the good of others? Essentially society said displaying porn in public where children may be present represents a harm to the children. Porn is viewed in public by consenting adults all the time. So the limit to "freedom of speech" relative to porn isn't across the board.

No one is hurt by a threat face to face or online. threats are taken seriously because follow through with the threat results in harm or limit to the other party's rights. I can't threaten another without risk of judicial intervention whether it be with speech, or gun.

Who decides about classified is a good question. I think the central, bureaucratic government (you support at almost every opportunity) makes the decision. I don't necessarily agree with it but that's where we find ourselves.

Clearly you can see there is a difference in infringed rights which protect the rights of others and infringed rights which protect the anxiety of others.
 
#12,007
#12,007
0nelilreb said:
It’s not honest on your part to argue these points as if we don’t already have these rights in place , and the restriction or limitation of them is ( by definition) infringement upon them . It you are given anything and you take away from that ( in any way ) you have infringed upon them . You are arguing from a point of opinion based on what you interpret it saying .
Click to expand...
So are safety regulations on firearms an infringement of your Constitutional rights?
 
#12,008
#12,008
hog88 said:
No the armed person is not threatening them so the armed person is not harming them. If they view the armed person as a threat it’s on them.
Click to expand...
Correct. Almost akin to someone slandering you outright and someone whispering to another while looking smugly in your direction. One is perceived the other is actual.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rickyvol77 and hog88
#12,009
#12,009
McDad said:
You remember yesterday when you said society has determined to limit rights for the good of others? Essentially society said displaying porn in public where children may be present represents a harm to the children. Porn is viewed in public by consenting adults all the time. So the limit to "freedom of speech" relative to porn isn't across the board.

No one is hurt by a threat face to face or online. threats are taken seriously because follow through with the threat results in harm or limit to the other party's rights. I can't threaten another without risk of judicial intervention whether it be with speech, or gun.

Who decides about classified is a good question. I think the central, bureaucratic government (you support at almost every opportunity) makes the decision. I don't necessarily agree with it but that's where we find ourselves.

Clearly you can see there is a difference in infringed rights which protect the rights of others and infringed rights which protect the anxiety of others.
Click to expand...
I understand that it is a constantly moving grey area that is defined by society and that there is no other alternative.
That's the way it is, should be, and has to be.
2a - in no way changes that - it's not some divine 11th commandment.
 
#12,011
#12,011
luthervol said:
Is walking into a restaurant carrying the gun in your hand more threatening than having it holstered?
Is having it visibly holstered more threatening than having it concealed?
Who decides?
Click to expand...

These are good questions. Well done.
 
#12,012
#12,012
luthervol said:
I understand that it is a constantly moving grey area that is defined by society and that there is no other alternative.
That's the way it is, should be, and has to be.
2a - in no way changes that - it's not some divine 11th commandment.
Click to expand...
Guaranteed rights aren't up to the whims of society unless there is harm involved.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hog88 and NurseGoodVol
#12,014
#12,014
luthervol said:
Feeling threatened is a reaction to the perception of being threatened.
Is walking into a restaurant carrying two AR-15's more threatening than carrying one?
Is carrying one AR-15 more threatening than having a handgun in your hand?
Is walking into a restaurant carrying the gun in your hand more threatening than having it holstered?
Is having it visibly holstered more threatening than having it concealed?
Who decides?
Click to expand...
Being armed is not the same as “carrying a gun in your hand”. Are you that ignorant of law?
 
#12,017
#12,017
luthervol said:
That's asinine. You are free to scream vulgarities in the park. The police are free to arrest you.
You are free to make terroistic threats on social media, the government is free to arrest you.
Severe negative consequences seem to be the thing used to "limit" freedoms, or encourage appropriate behaviors.
Click to expand...
In Germany you can go to jail for saying Heil Hitler in public. In the US maybe you lose your job or some people think you’re an idiot. Do you see the difference?
 
#12,018
#12,018
luthervol said:
Feeling threatened is a reaction to the perception of being threatened.
Is walking into a restaurant carrying two AR-15's more threatening than carrying one?
Is carrying one AR-15 more threatening than having a handgun in your hand?
Is walking into a restaurant carrying the gun in your hand more threatening than having it holstered?
Is having it visibly holstered more threatening than having it concealed?
Who decides?
Click to expand...
Thank goodness it’s not you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: StarRaider and Rickyvol77
#12,020
#12,020
hog88 said:
Thank goodness it’s not you.
Click to expand...

Or any "weakest link" scenario. Imagine not being able to walk one's dog because you "might" run across a cynophobe? Now have that extend to an enumerated Constitutional right. In the absence of an articulable* threat, which is an onus entirely carried by the person trying to sell the "perception" in question, it's ludicrous to think anyone should be ceding rights.

*"muh feelz" in no way, shape or form meets this criteria
 
  • Like
Reactions: NurseGoodVol, 37L1, hog88 and 2 others
#12,023
#12,023
Rickyvol77 said:
Being armed is not the same as “carrying a gun in your hand”. Are you that ignorant of law?
Click to expand...
I'm trying to walk you guys to a place where you can actually see the point.
So carrying a gun in your hand is not the same as being armed? Interesting.
So the two are rightfully viewed and perceived differently? Even more interesting.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top