-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
'8 yr old killed self with uzi' necropost thread closed
- Thread starter swine
- Start date
eye95
Well-known member
imported post
Great! Let's find someone to represent the other side of the question. Of course, that means we need a question. swine, maybe you could come up with a concise statement that you will argue for.
Then, we will need a format that you and whoever argues against will agree on. I hope that John or Mike will help us set things up to keep the kibitzers at bay. Possibly, one of them could act as the moderator (in the debate sense of the word; of course they already have moderator powers!) for the discussion or give someone some modest authority to do the job for them.
Great! Let's find someone to represent the other side of the question. Of course, that means we need a question. swine, maybe you could come up with a concise statement that you will argue for.
Then, we will need a format that you and whoever argues against will agree on. I hope that John or Mike will help us set things up to keep the kibitzers at bay. Possibly, one of them could act as the moderator (in the debate sense of the word; of course they already have moderator powers!) for the discussion or give someone some modest authority to do the job for them.
buster81
Regular Member
imported post
This should be entertaining.
This should be entertaining.
imported post
Hello eye95, how are you today?
Here are my debating points.
1. The intersection of guns and children is an unresolved issue preventing greater'open carry'legalization, and rightly so.
2. Guns are not an essential tool. Guns are a fetish, like a foot fetish.
3. It is possible to conceive of, design, and mass produce personal protection tools (weapons) that are far superior to guns as we know them, and far safer besides.
Hello eye95, how are you today?
Here are my debating points.
1. The intersection of guns and children is an unresolved issue preventing greater'open carry'legalization, and rightly so.
2. Guns are not an essential tool. Guns are a fetish, like a foot fetish.
3. It is possible to conceive of, design, and mass produce personal protection tools (weapons) that are far superior to guns as we know them, and far safer besides.
eye95
Well-known member
imported post
I would select one of those three to debate. There could be future debates on other questions.
On edit: I would also recommend simplifying your assertions. The first assertion, for example, has three parts. To prove the statement logically false, one only need to prove any one of the three parts false. That puts you at a distinct disadvantage.
I would select one of those three to debate. There could be future debates on other questions.
On edit: I would also recommend simplifying your assertions. The first assertion, for example, has three parts. To prove the statement logically false, one only need to prove any one of the three parts false. That puts you at a distinct disadvantage.
imported post
Good point. I'll go with the first topic since it's the one that brought me here. I think If I drop the, 'and properly so', bit I'll have either two related assertions or one slightly complex one. I don't care to debate just the intersection of guns and children, I imagine if guns are carefully stored this is not such a huge problem for children; somewhat of a problem due to incidents where children 'break into' the proper storage. But that's not too much more of a problem than kids stealing the keys to the family car.
So:
1. The intersection of guns and children is an unresolved issue that inhibits further 'open carry' legalization.
Good point. I'll go with the first topic since it's the one that brought me here. I think If I drop the, 'and properly so', bit I'll have either two related assertions or one slightly complex one. I don't care to debate just the intersection of guns and children, I imagine if guns are carefully stored this is not such a huge problem for children; somewhat of a problem due to incidents where children 'break into' the proper storage. But that's not too much more of a problem than kids stealing the keys to the family car.
So:
1. The intersection of guns and children is an unresolved issue that inhibits further 'open carry' legalization.
Sonora Rebel
Regular Member
imported post
Darwinism will prevail.
Darwinism will prevail.
eye95
Well-known member
imported post
swine wrote:
swine wrote:
So, what is meant by "is an unresolved issue," i.e. what would resolve it? And, what is meant by open carry legislation being inhibited? Is the legislation physically stopped? Or, should it be stopped?
Sonora Rebel
Regular Member
imported post
Open carry is not legal (some places)... because it's an unconstitutionally prohibited right.
Get it right. RKBA is not 'granted'... it's either recognized or denied.
Open carry is not legal (some places)... because it's an unconstitutionally prohibited right.
Get it right. RKBA is not 'granted'... it's either recognized or denied.
buster81
Regular Member
imported post
Oh yeah. I can really see this being productive.
Oh yeah. I can really see this being productive.
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
imported post
I don't want to interject to much into this debate I wrote an essay on the topic and guns and children are not that much of a problem as the media and anti's would have you believe. I did most my research on CDC.gov and another government website and pulled my statistics off of there. Of course all the papers I sent it too would not publish it.
I don't want to interject to much into this debate I wrote an essay on the topic and guns and children are not that much of a problem as the media and anti's would have you believe. I did most my research on CDC.gov and another government website and pulled my statistics off of there. Of course all the papers I sent it too would not publish it.
eye95
Well-known member
imported post
Well, the debate has not started yet. We still need the one person who will oppose swine in the debate. You sound like you have already done quite a bit of research on the topic. Would you care to volunteer to debate swine in a somewhat formal way?
Well, the debate has not started yet. We still need the one person who will oppose swine in the debate. You sound like you have already done quite a bit of research on the topic. Would you care to volunteer to debate swine in a somewhat formal way?
imported post
Sorry, but eye95 and I are trying to set up a one-on-one debate about this issue. What you read is my proposal for my side of the debate. If I address your questions, the debate has begun. Let's wait for eye95 to get the other side of the debate set up firs, Ok?
Sorry, but eye95 and I are trying to set up a one-on-one debate about this issue. What you read is my proposal for my side of the debate. If I address your questions, the debate has begun. Let's wait for eye95 to get the other side of the debate set up firs, Ok?
Sonora Rebel
Regular Member
imported post
swine wrote:
swine wrote:
No it doesn't. RKBA is 'infringed' all over the place. What 'gun rights'? Arms, dude... ARMS. Guns don't have rights, people do. People would have rights if there was no government at all. The right to bear arms being symbiotic with the right to self defense.The 2A has not yet been incorporated against the states. Check you state Constitution to see if bearing arms is recognized. All that permit and license stuff is government contrivance... the 'infringement' part they 'shall not' do.... But they did.
imported post
Everything you said is true except thenon-incorporation of the 2d Amendment intouniversal State law. Check Article IV(secondparagraph) and the 14th Amendment. Each alone doesn't achieve 'incorporation', but together they do.
HAND! <-(means 'have a nice day').
Everything you said is true except thenon-incorporation of the 2d Amendment intouniversal State law. Check Article IV(secondparagraph) and the 14th Amendment. Each alone doesn't achieve 'incorporation', but together they do.
HAND! <-(means 'have a nice day').
Sonora Rebel
Regular Member
imported post
swine wrote:
swine wrote:
SCotUS hasn't ruled on that yet. 'Til they do... 'they' don't.
GLOCK21GB
Campaign Veteran
imported post
like this
like this
Sonora Rebel
Regular Member
imported post
Glock34 wrote:
Glock34 wrote:
Yeah... really. :banghead:
buster81
Regular Member
imported post
Who's Awesome?
Who's Awesome?