“Sensible,” “Common Sense,” “Reasonable” Gun Control

What do these terms mean? Most people have no idea. They assume that these words have their common meaning.

Obama, my favorite amongst the remaining candidates, is at least honest enough to admit what he means:

I believe in keeping guns out of our inner cities, and that our leaders must say so in the face of
the gun manufacturers’ lobby. –The Audacity of Hope, p215

Obama believe in total urban gun bans--keeping guns out of our inner cities. I bet you won't hear that on TV.

Obama, while wrong, is at least honest enough to say what he means. Most anti-gun activist are, sad to say, dishonest
and wrong. Court cases put their backs against the wall, however, and sometimes the truth comes out. In the Heller
case, they have been put in the position of defending things they usually try to obscure (and that the media studiously ignores).

Here is a brief discussion of the meaning of these terms--in the real world. (Ignore the numbers, they are for footnotes that appear
in the original text.)

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

“Sensible Gun Control”
…consider a city with “reasonable,” “common sense” gun laws.49 The
District of Columbia‟s laws earn high grades from the Brady Campaign, and they approach (Obama’s)
total urban gun bans.

It is a crime in the District of Columbia to have a gun in your home that can actually shoot bullets. Guns are
ok, as long as they are useless. In order to ensure their uselessness, they must always be unloaded. In order
to be doubly sure, they must always be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock.
Making a gun useful by assembling (or unlocking) and loading it is a crime. The excuse that you are trying
to protect your family—or repel a rapist or avoid death—will not do.

When confronted with this reality, the District tried to argue that they don't really mean it. They tried to
convince the Supreme Court in Heller that there is an exception for self-defense.
Such an exception is fairly implied in the trigger lock requirement, just as it is in many of
the District‟s other laws.50

The problem is that they met and defeated that very defense in McIntosh v. Washington. 51 It is illegal to
load a gun in your home for self-defense. Period. Defending your business with a functional gun is legal.

These are the laws regarding long guns—rifles and shotguns. The situation with handguns is even worse.
You cannot possess a handgun that you did not register before Sept 1976. Even if you have a registered
handgun, you need a special permit to move it from room to room in your own house. Permits are
impossible to get.52 And of course your registered handgun must remain useless at all times. (You may load
guns kept at your place of business.)


These “reasonable,” “common sense" laws—carefully designed to prevent gun crimes, self-inflicted
wounds, and armed toddlers—caused Parker (the lead litigant in the original DC case, the precursor to
Heller) distress. A community activist, her outspoken opposition to drugs earned the enmity of a local
dealer, who threatened to kill her.

She should depend on the police, says the common wisdom. They are professionals, pledged to serve and
protect. Less known is the fact that they have no obligation to do either, as established in court:



To summarize, the District‟s position is that you must pay taxes for police who have no duty to protect
you.54 You may possess long guns, but they must always be kept in a useless condition, even when you are
under attack. To meet Heller’s legal challenge, the District now maintains that there is a self-defense
exception—a position they have previously defeated in court. Under this newly adopted position, a person
under immediate attack is allowed to assemble or unlock their weapon and load it. D.C. desires that the
Supreme Court should not address this “reasonable” law, still on the books, nor the legal precedent set by
the District‟s victory, but should take the District at its word on its future enforcement.

So let‟s take them at their word (for the sake of discussion only).

A law-abiding woman lives alone. She keeps a long gun as allowed in the District. At 2:00 AM, a drug
dealer breaks into her house and the race starts. She must awaken from a dead sleep, remove the lock (or
assemble the gun!), retrieve the ammunition, load the gun, and bring it into position in time to protect
herself.

Absent Special Forces training, this is a very tall order.
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Source: To see the footnotes and follow the links go to www.obamaonsecond.com . Search for “Sensible Gun Control” to find the section.

In the 50s and 60s, many people would argue for "common sense" regulations promoting racial separation. "Anyone with common sense can see that it can't be good for our society to have whites and coloreds eating in the same restaurants." Today, many people will tell you that "marriage can only be between a man and a woman, it's just oommon sense." Appeals to common sense are often used to discourage deep analysis of an issue.

Appeals to common sense are often used to discourage deep analysis of an issue.

And this is never a good sign.

is in the eye of the beholder

It has no objective meaning.

I have noticed the reluctance of people here (and of anti-gun activists in general) to lay down objective principles for restricting "the right of the people to keep and bear arms."

Who here besides yourself is using it?

Let us know when the straw army has been slain.

(I had time for another short one]

Well let’s see people:

There’s zanne’s post here using one of the terms (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x170523 ) that inspired me to post the OP. I didn’t want to make it personally about zanne, however, so I didn’t mention it.


HINT: He's talking about you guys; the NRA "soldiers". Whether you realize it or not, you let gun lobbies supply you with falso info, then you use it against any suggestion for reasonable gun control. Gun control IS NOT UNPOPULAR among Democratic voters. Maybe it is for Republican voters, but Democratic voters who would knowingly urge people not to vote for them because of their stance on guns is, in my opinion, traitorous. The Repubs will get one more vote because of YOU, not because of the will of the people. Stop advocating for the other party.


Then there were the people who posted to this thread, including iverglas, who whether they used the terms or not, were obviously talking about them. Iverglas’ speaking to the subject made me think it was fair game to ask her for substantive, adult ideas on it.

Iverglas’ speaking to the subject made me think it was fair game to ask her for substantive, adult ideas on it.

Not that you asked. I gave you every opportunity, but you didn't ask.


Whether you realize it or not, you let gun lobbies supply you with falso info, then you use it against any suggestion for reasonable gun control.

Pretty sad, that that's all you could come up with as a basis for your hokey question.

I don't see zanne proposing "reasonable gun control". I see her using shorthand for what the NRA's footsoldiers object to. Not in the context of what gun control measures should be adopted. In the context of a discussion of the possibly declining influence of the NRA's footsoldiers on public policy.

So I continue to see your thread here as no more than an attempt to frame the discourse in a way that gives you straw armies to slay. Which is all it was. As I said from the outset.

And all your huffing and puffing when presented with a straightforward answer to the straightforward question you COULD have asked just demonstrates that you were never operating in good faith in the first place.

There is huffing and puffing going on here, I agree. The truth is that this inspired my OP. My OP is not an answer to zanne's post, my OP does not depend on zanne's post, my OP was simply inspired by zanne's post. If you don't like the truth, you'll have to make up your own substitute.

And don't think I didn't notice how you studiously ignored post 47. It utterly refutes what's left of your "straw man" sophistry. (Don't worry, I'm sure you fooled someone.)

Of course a term does not have to be used here to be relevant. The fact that Obama uses the term and the Brady Campaign uses it, and the Million Mom March uses it and the VPC uses it... makes it relevant.

This thread was not started to target Iverglas. She was not mentioned in the OP. She wasn't in my mind when I posted it. (See part one for her thoughts on people who think everything is about them. It's sad.)

To ask her to defend a term she doesn't use would indeed be a straw man argument. I didn't. All I did was ask for her grown up concept of these terms after she opined mockingly on their meaning.

Is that a straw man argument? You decide.

All I did was ask for her grown up concept of these terms after she opined mockingly on their meaning.

So that's twice you've said that here; I just don't recall your doing it.

WHATEVER -- why would I give you a "concept" of terms that YOU WERE USING AS STRAW ADVERSARIES?

You have chosen to pretend that there is some significant band of people, or that there are some significant individuals, who wander around calling for "reasonable" or "common sense" firearms control AND HAVE NEVER STATED SPECIFICS in that regard.

You chose to pretend that time runs backwards, and things are the opposite of what they are, and undoubtedly that things fall up.

Those terms are shorthand for something that is really very easily determined by investigating what whoever is using them has said on specifics. Clinton? Obama? Look it up if you don't know.

If zanne was your inspiration, and you really don't have a clue what specifics she has advocated that she might ONCE have referred to in shorthand as "sensible" in a discussion in which the specifics were not in issue, then you'll be needing to see whether she had stated the specifics of her own position in the past. Not just within your personal earshot, keep in mind. The Guns forum doesn't revolve around you or anyone else, as we've recently discussed.

Big straw storm is all it was, and still is.

First you tried to claim that terms had to be used here in order to be raised in an OP. Hopefully we're past that BS.


Now you've constructed a ridiculous construct and are trying to attribute it to me:


You have chosen to pretend


BS. I have made a simple statement of fact.


that there is some significant band of people. . .


I gave specific examples of organizations—the Brady Campaign, the VPC and the Million Mom March.


who wander around


I said nothing about their movement.


calling for "reasonable" or "common sense" firearms control


Finally, something that has not been twisted to suit your purposes. Wow!


AND HAVE NEVER STATED SPECIFICS in that regard.


BS. I never said that. I never insinuated that. This is a real straw man.

Here is what I said (post 4):


I have noticed the reluctance of people here (and of anti-gun activists in general) to lay down objective principles for restricting "the right of the people to keep and bear arms."


The Brady Campaign, the VPC and the Million Mom March have a laundry list of gun control initiatives. They state specifics. The problem is that whatever new initiative they want to add to the list is simply pronounced “sensible” or “common sense” or “reasonable.” It seems to be a simple PR tactic. They're specific, they're just not principled.

I have read a lot of anti rights propaganda, and I have never seen a clear explanation of principles that separate the good policy proposals from the bad ones. It appears to me that a policy is judged “appropriate” (to use a neutral term) if it would meet the approval of someone who, like you, would like to live in a world without guns, but realizes that that is politically, culturally, and practically absurd.

As to what such unprincipled rules mean in the real world, I addressed that in the OP. Why haven’t you argued the law or the cases mentioned? Why haven’t you taken issue with the effect the rules have on Ms. Parker? Why haven’t you questioned my summary of D.C.’s position?

Why did you construct an actual straw man by twisting my position? Is all of this a diversion to keep people from seeing what gun control looks like when it is forced to reveal itself in court? Are you doing this because you know the OP is correct and you only have semantics and "who used what word first" types of arguments in your arsenal?

go call someone whose statements you object to.

IN THIS FORUM, your invocation of "sensible" blahblahblah is an assault on STRAW ADVERSARIES.

Your demand that someone else explain / defend
- whatever the various people / organizations who have used such terminology mean by it
- however they mean it to apply in practice
is empty noise.

Hey, we should ask Nabeshin (once again feigning ignorance, just two months ago) what my own position on the matter is:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=162434&mesg_id=162655

"I go with the basic principles stated by the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Oakes, as since refined and clarified." ... "There are similar principles of constitutional scrutiny in your system, as developed by your courts."

Oh, hell, I'll copy out the Oakes stuff for you:

Section 1 of the Constitution Act, 1984 (Canada), provides:

Guarantee of Rights and Freedoms
Rights and freedoms in Canada

1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

The summary of Oakes goes like this:

Two central criteria must be satisfied to establish that a limit is reasonable and demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

First, the objective to be served by the measures limiting a Charter right must be sufficiently important to warrant overriding a constitutionally protected right or freedom. The standard must be high to ensure that trivial objectives or those discordant with the principles of a free and democratic society do not gain protection. At a minimum, an objective must relate to societal concerns which are pressing and substantial in a free and democratic society before it can be characterized as sufficiently important.

Second, the party invoking s. 1 must show the means to be reasonable and demonstrably justified. This involves a form of proportionality test involving three important components.

1. The measures must be fair and not arbitrary, carefully designed to achieve the objective in question and rationally connected to that objective.

2. The means should impair the right in question as little as possible.

3. There must be a proportion­ality between the effects of the limiting measure and the objective ‑‑ the more severe the deleterious effects of a measure, the more important the objective must be.


And then it's always wise to keep these wise words in mind:

http://www.guncontrol.ca/Content/ConstitutionalChallenge.html

On February 21-22, 2000 the Supreme Court of Canada heard a provincial constitutional challenge against Canada’s new gun control legislation. The challenge was initiated by the Alberta government, joined by the provinces of Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and the territories.

... While the Alberta Government claims that there is no "proof" that gun control works, the standard of "proof" it is demanding goes far beyond what is required for justice reforms. Dr. Neil Boyd, Criminology professor at Simon Fraser University argued that the detailed evaluation of the 1977 legislation provides stronger evidence of the effectiveness of gun control than is available to support on most other reforms. Dr. Martin Killias, criminologist, University of Lausanne, has suggested that demands for conclusive "proof" are often a strategy for delay.

http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/2000/2000scc31/2000scc31.html
(The issue was actually the constitutionality of the Firearms Act as a valid exercise of federal powers vs. an entrenchment on provincial powers, but the Court's comments are relevant to your questions.)

Held: The appeal should be dismissed. The impugned provisions of the Firearms Act are constitutional.

The Firearms Act constitutes a valid exercise of Parliament’s jurisdiction over criminal law. The Act in “pith and substance” is directed to enhancing public safety by controlling access to firearms. Its purpose is to deter the misuse of firearms, control those given access to guns, and control specific types of weapons. It is aimed at a number of “mischiefs”, including the illegal trade in guns, both within Canada and across the border with the United States, and the link between guns and violent crime, suicide, and accidental deaths. The purpose of the Firearms Act conforms with the historical public safety focus of all gun control laws. The changes introduced by the Act represent a limited expansion of the pre-existing gun control legislation. The effects of the Act also suggest that its essence is the promotion of public safety. The criteria for acquiring a licence are concerned with safety. Criminal record checks and background investigations are designed to keep guns out of the hands of those incapable of using them safely. Safety courses ensure that gun owners are qualified.

The Firearms Act possesses all three criteria required for a criminal law. Gun control has traditionally been considered valid criminal law because guns are dangerous and pose a risk to public safety. The regulation of guns as dangerous products is a valid purpose within the criminal law power. That purpose is connected to prohibitions backed by penalties.

The registration provisions cannot be severed from the rest of the Act. The licensing provisions require everyone who possesses a gun to be licensed; the registration provisions require all guns to be registered. These portions of the Firearms Act are both tightly linked to Parliament’s goal of promoting safety by reducing the misuse of any and all firearms. Both portions are integral and necessary to the operation of the scheme.

The problems associated with the misuse of firearms are firmly grounded in morality. However, even if gun control did not involve morality, it could still fall under the federal criminal law power. Parliament can use the criminal law to prohibit activities which have little relation to public morality.

I'm sure you're concerned about that reference to morality, so this will help you; "morality" refers to the "wrongness" of the acts that most criminal laws are directed to:

Yet another argument is that the ownership of guns is not criminal law because it is not immoral to own an ordinary firearm. There are two difficulties with this argument. The first is that while the ownership of ordinary firearms is not in itself regarded by most Canadians as immoral, the problems associated with the misuse of firearms are firmly grounded in morality. Firearms may be misused to take human life and to assist in other immoral acts, like theft and terrorism. Preventing such misuse can be seen as an attempt to curb immoral acts. Viewed thus, gun control is directed at a moral evil.

If you'd like a complete course on your own constitutional law, you might have to register and pay tuition fees somewhere.


It appears to me that a policy is judged “appropriate” (to use a neutral term) if it would meet the approval of someone who, like you, would like to live in a world without guns, but realizes that that is politically, culturally, and practically absurd.

Ya think? Ya don't think you're either making a claim based on actual ignorance of what *I* say on the point, or pretending to be ignorant of what *I* say on the point so you can make a false claim?

I have no clue what someone else thinks is "appropriate". What is "appropriate" TO ME, when it comes to legislation, is, in cases of this nature, that it not infringe constitutional guarantees as properly interpreted. I'm fortunate that I'm in broad agreement with how my Supreme Court interprets the guarantees in my constitution, most of the time these days. Your Supreme Court, much of the time, sucks, and your constitution itself has problems mine doesn't have; so if I lived where you live, I'd be making basically the same arguments, but without "authoritative" opinion to back them up.

I do know that my statement that I would like to live in a world without firearms ... much the way I would like to live in a world without pigeons ... has precisely fuck all to do with my own positions on firearms policy. Unless you have some evidence or argument to the contrary, and specifically some reason to claim that everything I have said in the past about the tests for constitutionality where I'm at and my overall support for them is false, you could stop trying to portray me and my words as what you know, or have no excuse for not knowing, I and they are not.

It appears to me that a policy is judged “appropriate” (to use a neutral term) if it would meet the approval of someone who, like you, would like to live in a world without guns, but realizes that that is politically, culturally, and practically absurd.--Tpaine7

Ya think? Ya don't think you're either making a claim based on actual ignorance of what *I* say on the point, or pretending to be ignorant of what *I* say on the point so you can make a false claim?--iverglas



My goodness, you're delusional. See the commas around "like you"? They mean they're parenthetical--not essential in any way to the point, an aside. They simply show that the people happen to share that aspect of your frame of reference. Take the words out, and the sentence will mean the same thing. I am not actually talking about you, the OP wasn't about you (I wrote almost all of it before I knew you existed!), most of my comments here aren't about you. What do I care what an old woman in Canada thinks about gun control, in and of itself?

I came here to discuss gun rights and gun policy. People's opinions matter in the sense that intelligent, honest people who disagree with me can show me flaws in my thinking. Delusional people are a colossal waste of time. What type of narcissism does it take to think that an excerpt from an open letter to Obama, written before the author knew you existed, is a misrepresentation of your position? That people should carefully check to make sure their OPs that have nothing to do with you are "respectful" of your position? That others should politely respond to your obscene and obnoxious rants? That your opinion should never be criticized but you can mock others?

The OP was about people who matter in the scheme of American Second Amendment politics. They are identified. Iverglas is not among them. Read it through carefully.

Your quotation of Canadian law is about as useful as most of your other comments.

I do know that my statement that I would like to live in a world without firearms ... much the way I would like to live in a world without pigeons ... has precisely fuck all to do with my own positions on firearms policy. Unless you have some evidence or argument to the contrary, and specifically some reason to claim that everything I have said in the past about the tests for constitutionality where I'm at and my overall support for them is false, you could stop trying to portray me and my words as what you know, or have no excuse for not knowing, I and they are not.

I'm not going to investigate your comments, iverglas. I don't care enough. Do you understand that yet? The OP wasn't about you, it was about people who actually matter in the grand scheme of things. It was intended to be discussed by reasonable, intellectually honest people. There was no reason for you to participate at all.

If you see an OP or post by me that isn't a response to your post or that doesn't have your name in it, there is almost a 100% certainty that it isn't about you. Really.


It isn't about you.

No need to keep offering proof.


It appears to me that a policy is judged “appropriate” (to use a neutral term) if it would meet the approval of someone who, like you, ...

You actually think that my reply somehow hinged on your cleverly interpolated "like you" somehow.

The fact is that my reply was to your assertion that "someone" might judge something "appropriate" if it met "met the approval" ...

Oh, I give up. Trying to parse a pile of poop is a fool's game.

You have no idea how anyone, including me, would determine whether a policy is "appropriate", and you plainly have no interest in learning. You have no interest in civil discourse. You have no interest in democratic discourse. You are a demagogue of the first water. And unfortunately for you, you are actually quite bad at the job.


The OP wasn't about you, it was about people who actually matter in the grand scheme of things.

Yeah? Look how much you obviously matter to them, eh?

Well, in my own experience, they mean that someone in the Guns forum is about to go riding off on some hobbyhorse or another about how nobody knows what they mean and they're really code for THEY'RE GOING TO TAKE AWAY YOUR GRANDPAPPY'S VARMING-HUNTIN THINGY!!!

Oh, and exploit violence against women to shove an agenda.

Oh, and exploit violence against women to shove an agenda

and you don't do that either with all your whining about how all husband with guns intimidate their wives

I haven't been here that long, and I've seen that.

If it's exploiting when the goose does it, it's exploiting when the gander does.

Think hard, and you'll see the difference between the gander and the goose here.

One has no dog in the race, and one does. There's your first clue.

In case you're not good at clues:

I have nothing to gain personally from anything done to protect women from violence committed by their intimate partners, including violence and intimidation committed using firearms. In fact, I have nothing to gain personally from any measures taken to reduce harms caused with firearms.

You're just trying to get your own way so you can have what you want and do what you want and fuck anybody who doesn't like it, and you'll attempt to exploit the misfortune and suffering of anyone who crosses your path if they look useful.

Seeing it now?

(second-person admittedly) knowledge of the effect of rape on women.

I have had multiple women confide their experiences to me. I have comforted and heard them.

A woman I loved and purchased a weapon for used it to chase off a would-be-rapist.

I have purchased more than one weapon for a woman I loved, and offered to purchase one for a close female relative (who didn't want it).

So when I read this from an on-line persona who has no idea of who I am or what I stand for. . .

You're just trying to get your own way so you can have what you want and do what you want and fuck anybody who doesn't like it, and you'll attempt to exploit the misfortune and suffering of anyone who crosses your path if they look useful.

. . .I am less than impressed.

Seeing it now?


People who don't make personal assumptions don't look like asses, at least not as often.

None of it impresses me.

You might want to take your own advice about assumptions, and not be trying to teach your grandmother to suck eggs.

Find me a woman who hasn't been sexually assaulted, and I'll show you a woman who died very young.

I really do have to go. The idea of someone patting himself on the back for putting firearms in the pockets of women, as if this is some meaningful contribution to reducing the sexual victimization of women and girls, is making me queasy.

No one was trying to impress you.

I was simply trying to show you the falsity of your personal accusations.

Can't say I'm sorry to see you leave. Take your time coming back.

She really doesn't believe that any woman anywhere can ever have a consentual relationship with a man does she?

Why does that sentiment keep shining though?

"I really do have to go. The idea of someone patting himself on the back for putting firearms in the pockets of women, as if this is some meaningful contribution to reducing the sexual victimization of women and girls, is making me queasy"

You love anecdotal evidence. You just started a hot thread based entirely on anecdotal evidence.
Tpaine7 shared anecdotal evidence that his helping to arm a woman in his life DID reduce sexual violence!

And you still try to turn it into him "abusing" the woman.

You make me sick.

I bet you really do think that anytime a man even looks at a woman he is 'exploiting' her don't you?

And you still try to turn it into him "abusing" the woman.

How anyone can say things as vilely false like that in public without puking in the process would be entirely beyond me.

Clean your shoes off, now. It smells.

Always! Always to you the guy helping the women he loves become proficient with the best defense tool available is him 'exploiting' her or 'forcing guns on her'. you NEVER can accept the fact that not all women are like you, perfectly willing to spend your life denying that if you had been armed you could have saved yourself whatever trauma it was you went through!

Never are you willing to accept that there are plenty of female shooters too, and that females are the fastest growing segment of the Concealed-Carrying populace and gun-owning poulace!

Just because you couldn't protect yourself doesn't mean you need to berate people for trying to help the women in their life to protect themselves.

Obsession. It's not healthy. Need a hobby? Cooking is always useful.

What does sensible gun control mean? What are its underlying principles? What (if any) are the limits of legitimate control? Are there any rights whatsoever for gun owners? Do you have actual opinions on these questions that aren't criticisms of others?

to answer.





Quick! Slay it!

Are you incapable of answering these questions because you have no answers?

Is it because your positions are untenable?

Is it because you can't back up your answers, and you prefer to take cheap shots at others' positions instead?

Is it because your positions are unprincipled that you can't spell out their principles?

Why must you pretend that these legitimate questions are defective?

because I am incapable of wasting my time on such drivel.

Are you incapable of answering these questions because you have no answers?
Is it because your positions are untenable?
Is it because you can't back up your answers, and you prefer to take cheap shots at others' positions instead?
Is it because your positions are unprincipled that you can't spell out their principles?
Why must you pretend that these legitimate questions are defective?

Drivel.
Drivel.
Drivel.
Drivel.
Drivel.


To be perfectly honest, it doesn't rise to the level of drivel.

It's too wallowing around too deeply in the muck of intellectual dishonesty to get up to that level.

If you're incapable, why bother?

That alone shows who is intellectually dishonest here. Your false accusation in your goose and gander post above just confirms it.

Pathetic.

Are you incapable of answering these questions because you have no answers?

Oh, it looks to me she has lots of answers. None logical, of course, but lots of answers.

Is it because your positions are untenable?

It definitely looks that way to me.

Is it because you can't back up your answers, and you prefer to take cheap shots at others' positions instead?

Ding! Vitriol, sarcasm, patronization, innuendo, and vulgarity. All Iverglas trademarks.

Is it because your positions are unprincipled that you can't spell out their principles?

I believe so.

Why must you pretend that these legitimate questions are defective?

You know, I used to have this dog that used to like to roll in dog crap. The vet told us she did it because she enjoyed the smell and was trying to mask her own smell.

Watching Iverglas in this form reminds me of that old dog.

You're coming to understand this poster's "logic" more quickly than many others who have argued with her. The basic rules for shooting down any of her arguments are:

Don't ask yes/no questions. Usually when someone asks a yes/no question in an argument, they are trying to get their opponent to trap themselves in a logically untenable position. She is well-acquainted with this tactic, and will dodge all simple yes/no questions by insisting that they reflect a false dichotomy, that they're "the kind of thing a complete moron would ask," etc.

Instead, ask "what" and "how" questions like "what does sensible gun control mean," "how would you get guns away from criminals," etc. These questions require substantive answers that will require the person answering to define and detail their positions.

You've noticed by now that your opponent will avoid drawing a line in the sand if at all possible during an argument. That's because when she states the particulars of her views in a clear-cut fashion, their irrationality can be pointed out. She prefers dancing around the yes/no questions and flinging ad hominem attacks, and she'll attempt the same thing when confronted with short-answer questions, claiming they're "drivel," but when she does this it starts becoming clear that she's really just telling you to pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. Insist that she make her viewpoints clear by answering open-ended questions and she'll quickly wilt.

This concludes Counter-Sophistry 101.

...if you mean Counter Sophistry 101 as a remedial class for 7th graders.

These seem like tactics one should have encountered (and defeated) by 5th grade. The hard part is believing that a grown (and supposedly old) woman would resort to them. I kept hoping for adult arguments. She's obviously not too stupid to have an adult conversation and I prefer to think the best of people, so I kept hoping for integrity, logic, and decency to take the reigns. Oh well, I suspect you've been there before me.

You're right of course, it's easy enough to defeat entry level sophistry, but where's the self-respect in that? Yes, I am smarter than a fifth grader's tactical arsenal, big deal. I think I'll skip all the way past (college) graduation, and miss out on the the flinging monkey poo seminar. I'll just refuse to engage 5th grade tactics and only respond to sophistries that I think might actually confuse innocent bystanders.

Manners. An expression of their understanding that they are not the centre of the universe and that the other people in it are subjects in their own lives, not objects. If people haven't learned that before they enter school, actually, it is generally too late, and they will likely be psychopathic/sociopathic their entire lives.

One element of manners involves being careful, when joining a conversation that has been going on for a long time before one arrived, to acquaint one's self with the participants in the conversation and with what has been said before one got there.

In the real world and among the normal people who inhabit it, butting into a conversation being conducted among people who are strangers to one's self and demanding that said strangers reiterate everything they have said in the previous 10 minutes, let alone 5 years, on pain of being insulted and vilified by one's self, would truly be regarded as the height of ill mannered behaviour.

I have not yet figured out what it is that makes some people think such behaviour is appropriate in the cyberworld. Truly, I haven't. If you want to try explaining this to me, I'm listening.

If there is anyone on this forum who is in no position to lecture about manners, it is you, Iverglas.

From what I've seen, hardly a post crosses your keyboard that isn't full of condescension, patronization, biting sarcasm, innuendo, vulgarity, and vitriol.

You appear to me to be the most intentionally abrasive poster in this forum.

You appear to me to be the most intentionally abrasive poster in this forum.

If that were actually true, it would be quite an accomplishment.

Sadly, there are several at whose feet I must worship if I ever wish to attain that rank.

You are the blueprint for anyone who wants to get ugly, and for anyone hoping to polarize and end any legitimate discussion going on.

Congratulations iverglas, you are the one certain to be voted off this island.

you are the one certain to be voted off this island.

if I stick to a jury of my peers.


Obsess much?

Listen or not, iverglas, this is not really for you (except the last paragraph):

This is one of the funniest (or saddest) things I have ever read. Let’s look at the thread history.

I started a thread, and after I had some brief exchanges with Nabeshin and bossy22, iverglas offered this contribution:



iverglas’ words fit well here:


One element of manners involves being careful, when joining a conversation that has been going on for a long time before one arrived, to acquaint one's self with the participants in the conversation and with what has been said before one got there.

I started the thread, others joined, and then iverglas came in with a sarcastic crack that evaded the OP’s question. She then lectured me on interrupting conversations.

Beautiful, isn’t it?

Oh, but there’s an escape hatch. She can lean on the words I underlined. She did not say it was rude to interrupt period, she said it was wrong to interrupt a conversation “that has been going on for a long time before one arrived” and that is not the case here. So she can still argue that it is polite to interrupt recently started conversations with sarcastic, mocking comments. And you are free to believe her.

Next bossy22 made a point:


Oh, and exploit violence against women to shove an agenda

and you don't do that either with all your whining about how all husband with guns intimidate their wives


I thought it was an excellent point, and said so. This, ladies and gentlemen, is my rude post:


Good point
I haven't been here that long, and I've seen that.

If it's exploiting when the goose does it, it's exploiting when the gander does.


Let’s examine my rudeness. First there is the compliment to bossy22. Then the acknowledgement that I haven’t been here that long, but I’ve seen iverglas talk about husbands with guns intimidate their wives. Then, I reiterate bossy22’s point using the words of an old parable.

Naturally, this offends iverglas, but she responds mildly thus:



Saintly, long suffering iverglas!

After accusing me of butting in, she explains the rudeness of making unreasonable demands:



While I agree with the principle expressed, it seems unrelated to…well, reality. In context, she seems to be implying that I have made such demands. I honestly don’t remember making them, and I certainly don’t remember threatening to insult and vilify anyone. Can anyone out there remember that? If a rational onlooker shows me the relevant post(s) I would be grateful.

Now I could have made this a lot stronger than it is. Easily. I could have brutally answered her challenges on the African thread I started, too. But I resisted the impulse. She probably thought I was afraid to answer that, too. She obviously thinks I am intimidated by her posts here.

That doesn’t matter. What does matter is putting an end to my participation in playground squabbles. This thread is the end of the line. (I plan to answer other posts in this thread; I have limited time for utter nonsense, though, so they will have to wait.)

The grasp of reality evident in iverglas’ post amazes me. I am not surprised to see otherwise rational people lose their bearings when the subject of guns arises. People, people I respect, make logical leaps equivalent to 3+5=27 in order to arrive at the right answer. I make the assumption that it’s a phobic reaction, and try to convince them otherwise. But this is another level. It’s jawdropping.


Manners. An expression of their understanding that they are not the centre of the universe and that the other people in it are subjects in their own lives, not objects. If people haven't learned that before they enter school, actually, it is generally too late, and they will likely be psychopathic/sociopathic their entire lives...

I have not yet figured out what it is that makes some people think such behaviour is appropriate in the cyberworld. Truly, I haven't. If you want to try explaining this to me, I'm listening.


Fascinating.

Nothing personal, iverglas, but I don’t have the skills to explain it so I won’t even try. There may be some professionals who can, though. You might want to seek them out. (Or not.)

Diversionary grooming.

You asked an obnoxious, dishonest question.

Your "question" got the treatment it deserved.

You then got an answer you did not deserve: a straightforward answer to the straightforward question you COULD have asked if you had been operating in good faith and treating others in the forum, in particular those who disagree with you, with respect.

And all we see now is a bunch of licking and scratching and chewing.

No response to the answer to the question.

Colour me not remotely surprised.

When I respond to a post in a thread you start, I am not interrupting a conversation. Not even if my response consists of pointing out that your "questions" are hokey and disrespectful.

When you join a discussion forum and find that there are people who disagree with you, and set about misrepresenting those people's positions and asking them hokey "questions" instead of making a genuine effort to determine what their positions are, you are simply being rude.

Very simple, realy.

Don't ask yes/no questions. Usually when someone asks a yes/no question in an argument, they are trying to get their opponent to trap themselves in a logically untenable position. She is well-acquainted with this tactic, and will dodge all simple yes/no questions by insisting that they reflect a false dichotomy, that they're "the kind of thing a complete moron would ask," etc.

Half-truth, as is so common.

The tactic usually manifests itself in loaded yes/no questions, of course.

Instead, ask "what" and "how" questions like "what does sensible gun control mean," "how would you get guns away from criminals," etc. These questions require substantive answers that will require the person answering to define and detail their positions.

If I asked you "what does sensible gun control mean?", what would your answer be?

Might it be that you've never advocated "sensible gun control", so I should go ask someone who has done so?

You can take my answer as read now, I think.


You've noticed by now that your opponent will avoid drawing a line in the sand if at all possible during an argument. That's because when she states the particulars of her views in a clear-cut fashion, their irrationality can be pointed out.

Odd ... how I have done preciesly that, very precisely ... and nobody has ever done what you suggest at all.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=111700&mesg_id=126288

iverglas
Fri Jul-07-06 10:45 AM
30. so, where have you been all my life?

What, my dear iverglas, is your plan for gun-control?

Civilized people don't wander into a room where people are having a conversation, butt in, accuse people of saying things they haven't said (and of being not too bright, etc. etc.), and when met by mild objections, demand a replay of everything that was said before they got there.

I see you don't have a gold star. I bought myself one purely so that I could search; I paid for a service. (I had qualms about "donating" since the site is a political discussion site in a foreign country, and it's not for me to use money to influence that discourse.)

If you get one, what you want to do is a search for posts by iverglas with words like "storage" and "registration" and "licensing".

I don't have a plan for firearms control in the US, by the way, and more than I have a plan for job creation in Antigua. I have a plan for firearms control in Canada that is quite similar on most points to the plan already in effect here, with some additions that many people would like to see. And I have a wish list of things that I'd like to see done in the US because of the effect that not doing them has where I am, and of course also just because I am a fan of social justice for everyone, not just people I know.

Here's the sort of thing you find on such a search:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=129303&mesg_id=129427

iverglas
Tue Oct-03-06 08:10 PM
96. goodness, I don't think you've ever asked me!

I've issued this challenge several times....
...once more wont' hurt. Please, tell us your plan. Tell us how IT will work, when similar plans to stop pot, liquor, heroin, porn, gambling, you fukcing name it, have not.

"Similar plans"? How can you know what someone's plan is similar to, when you don't even know what it is? Spew straw, much?

Do a little searchy on my name, and you will find much. You want to look for things like

regulations requiring safe/secure storage of firearms
legislation requiring licensing of individuals seeking to acquire/possess firearms
legislation requiring registration of firearms ownership/transfers

Oh, and strict controls on acquisition and possession of handguns, the criminal/murderer's weapon of choice. Preferably no acquisition and possession of handguns. Not an easy thing to implement when your country is awash in the bloody things, but the longest journey starts with a single step and all that. And in the meantime, there are always

regulations requiring safe/secure storage of firearms
legislation requiring licensing of individuals seeking to acquire/possess firearms
legislation requiring registration of firearms ownership/transfers

What's quite funny is that when doing the search, I find more posts referring presumptuous assholes to my previous posts on the subject than anything else.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=127146&mesg_id=132018

Mon Nov-20-06 12:23 AM

... Did you ever think that one of the reasons you must constantly play the part of the aggrieved and misunderstood intellectual is because you rarely (if ever) make any sort of direct statement about your ideas for pragmatic FIREARMS POLICY?

I don't spend a lot of time thinking about unimportant people's fantasies about myself or anyone else, actually.

As usual, boldface (other than for the dates of the posts) indicates things said by third parties, italics indicate things previously said by me.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=124088&mesg_id=124223

iverglas
Thu Apr-27-06 10:48 AM
48. where have you been all my life?

... because said law-abiding dealers and owners suddenly develop a conscience, or at least a healthy respect for laws that require them to stop behaving that way on pain of punishment and that include some mechanisms to make it actually possible to convict them of doing it
What mechanisms might those be? This ought to be good.

It's been good for a very long time. And I'm always happy to say it for the brazilianth time for a newbie.


(1) safe/secure storage laws

Thousands and thousands of firearms pass into criminal hands because their legal owners are too stupid or piggish to store them securely and they are stolen in break-ins. Criminal liability should attach if a firearm that was not securely stored is stolen, regardless of whether it is used for criminal purposes -- and if a firearm gets into the hands of a child, regardless of whether the child or anyone else is injured.

(2) licensing requirements for firearms owners

Not just those "background checks". Permanent records of who is licensed to acquire and possess firearms (with licences only available to people who have taken appropriate courses), and requirement that a licence be presented by anyone acquiring a firearm from anyone by any method.

(3) firearms registry

The only way that the licensing requirement can be enforced, i.e. that transfers to unqualified/disqualified individuals by "law-abiding gun owners" can be deterred. Once the initial sale is recorded, all subsequent transfers must be registered, and ownership of the firearm can be traced to its last legal owner.


These laws are directed to legal, law-abiding firearms owners, most of whom have incentives to obey the law: their conscience; what they stand to lose if they are caught breaking the law. Those two factors set them apart from their criminal counterparts, along with the fact that they don't have the incentive to break the law that the criminals have (since they need firearms for purposes for which the non-criminals don't, and they can't acquire them legally).

The effect of legal, law-abiding firearms owners

(1) storing their firearms securely
(2) being identifiable and having to identify themselves in order to engage in legal firearms transactions
(3) having an incentive not to engage in prohibited transfers, whether knowingly or unknowingly

can reasonably be expected to be a reduction in the flow of firearms from legal owners to people who are or should be prohibited from possessing firearms. (A firearms registry also has other purposes and effects, but we'll stick with the "keeping guns out of criminals' hands" issue for now.)

And the effect of reducing that flow can reasonably be expected to be a reduction in firearms violence and firearms-facilitated crime, in the medium and long term. Obviously, there is a large supply of firearms already in criminal circulation in the US, and they are not going to go away the day legislation is enacted.

Of course, I also recommend very severe restrictions on the acquisition and possession of handguns, the weapon of choice for facilitating crimes and causing intentional death and injury, and the weapon vastly most commonly used for those purposes in the US.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=126427&mesg_id=126486

iverglas
Thu Jul-13-06 02:45 PM
17. nope

<expanded quotation included here for clarity>

I would like to live in a society where there were no firearms, but I recognize that as an absurd aspiration. I live in a society where people hunt for food, where people raise livestock and grow crops that are threatened by predators and pests, where people make a living taking tourists hunting, where people need firearms in order to enforce the law and protect the public and in some cases to help to ensure that they can go about lawful business safely. And even where people play with guns as a hobby, which there is nothing inherently objectionable in.

The fact that I insist that all those people's firearms be registered, and that they meet stringent criteria before being permitted to acquire and possess firearms, and that they comply with safe/secure storage rules -- and that I oppose handgun possession by members of the public -- does not mean that I intend to try to keep whittling away at who may have firearms and what firearms they may have and what they may do with them.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=126546&mesg_id=126760

iverglas
Thu Jul-20-06 01:16 PM
96. eh?

... Which ones would you like to see 'outlawed'?

Why don't you just try paying attention? You've been here two years now; you're not actually just jumping into an existing conversation with two big feet and demanding that the participants explain themselves to you. It really just is not my problem if you don't know what I've said, and I really do get bored to tears by such efforts to keep the conversation going in circles.

Oh look. I'm pretty sure you read this post, because you were rather active in the thread:

<links to several earlier posts>

You: And if gun safes fail -- the next step may be total ban, eh?

Me: You're right. If public safety cannot be ensured by permitting people to possess certain firearms subject to conditions (whether because the conditions are never adequate for the purpose or because it proves impossible to secure compliance with them), the only way to protect the public may be to cease permitting people to possess them.

The "certain firearms" under discussion were of course handguns -- which people are allowed to possess now, with few exceptions, only for sporting purposes if they are members of approved clubs or to hold as part of collections. I advocate removing the provision excepting "collectors" from the general prohibition on possession of handguns other than by shooting club members. (And I would also advocate prohibiting the possesion of handguns by those people off the club premises, the most determining reason being that too many of both groups have demonstrated their complete inability/refusal to comply with safe/secure storage rules and as a result their firearms have ended up being used to commit crimes and cause harm.)

Happy?

But I'm glad you would allow people to own long guns. Does that include semiauto rifles similar looking to the ones the military uses (except not full auto or burst fire!!!) as they are long guns too? Or do you want them 'outlawed'? Or restricted?

I have given the source for Canadian rules in this regard, which I support, and the rules themselves, on quite a few occasions. Use your gold star and do a search for my name and "canlii". In short: they already are. And I agree.


<next is link to and quotation of post 96 reproduced earlier>


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=130282&mesg_id=130368

iverglas
Mon Oct-16-06 06:56 PM
31. howdy!

... There are several things that can contribute to making it difficult for people to possess / traffic in firearms illegally.

(1) Safe/secure storage laws
- these are directed toward those fearful / law-abidin' folks, who are susceptible to the threat of punishment and/or who don't like breaking laws, equally importantly, the educating effect of laws: the reasons for such laws are obvious to anyone who thinks about it, and anyone who cares at all about public safety will quickly grasp the wisdom of complying with them.

Safe/secure firearms storage could keep hundreds of thousands of firearms out of criminal hands in the US every year.

(2) Firearms registration
- if every firearms transaction (sale, gift, purchase) must be registered, people who are not inclined by nature to break laws can be expected to think twice before selling firearms to strangers in parking lots. They will be engaging in an illegal transaction, and if their purchaser turns out to have criminal plans for the firearm, it could be traced to the vendor and consequences ensue, so many people who are motivated by fear of punishment will also think twice.

(3) Licensing of firearms owners
- this goes in tandem with firearms registration: any transfer to an unlicensed owner would be an unlawful transfer, so the same people would be deterred from engaging in such transfers.


__________________________________

That's the last 6 months, on a very simple search.

And you've been here since 2002, and you take a rather lively interest in all things moi, and you've managed to miss every single one of 'em. Have I got that?

So. When can I expect the next rerun of the iverglas never says anything pissing and moaning soap opera?

A lot sooner than I can expect you to be retracting your false statements, I predict.

Like I wuz saying.

I think you can take my response as read.


And I think we know that "counter-sophistry" isn't quite an accurate characterization of misrepresentation. Intentional? Who knows?

We might have a clue though. The lengthy post I reproduced above was #127 in the thread.

Post #123, just preceding it in the subthread in question, was by ... why, none other than Nabeshin:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=127146&mesg_id=132007

Two and a half years ago.

And making a false statement at that ...

It's the invisible post.

You gave your point. Other people gave theirs.

David

... she says to thin air ...


They demand answers to hokey questions, they claim no answers have ever been given ... and when the answers are laid out in front of their faces, with the evidence that they have been given repeatedly over a period of three years and more ...

that is a grasshopper. B-) :hi:

They demand answers to hokey questions, they claim no answers have ever been given ... and when the answers are laid out in front of their faces, with the evidence that they have been given repeatedly over a period of three years and more ...

Just curious. . .

(Oh, I plan to address the substance of post 25 in my next visit, either way.)

I think that will be a "yes".

Your thread, i'n't it?

Another version of me

demand{ed} answers to hokey questions

claim{ed} no answers have ever been given

and

{was presented with} evidence that {he has} been given repeatedly over a period of three years and more

I am confident that he can answer the charges against him in The Imperial High Court of Post 25. In this universe, however, none of these events ever took place.

The most charitable explanation I can come up with is that iverglas travels between universes, and that everything she says is true in at least one. This would make her an object of fascination and curiosity, as opposed to, say, pity and contempt.

at least I don't talk to myself.

Post 25 awaits your replies.

regulations requiring safe/secure storage of firearms
legislation requiring licensing of individuals seeking to acquire/possess firearms
legislation requiring registration of firearms ownership/transfers

and a total ban on handguns.

We got it.

David

4 pages of diatribe condensed into 4 lines.

The wall of text. What this particular wall of text amounts to is you saying that you have articulated support for specific firearms restrictions including licensing, registration and a ban on handguns in the past. Good for you. It's not hard to say that this law or that law will eliminate gun crime, especially when the chances of those laws passing across the US are next to none.

What you haven't done is answer questions like "when is it justifiable to use deadly force in self-defense." I recall the absurd logical gymnastics you went through to condemn the guy in Seattle who shot a schizophrenic man that knocked him down, started kicking him and said "I'm going to kill you." You also came down pretty hard on the wheelchair-bound woman who shot a guy trying to mug her. I guess she should have just got up and run away. In case you've forgotten, we're still waiting for you to cite a civilian self-defense shooting that you feel is justified.

I'd also like to hear how you think law-abiding citizens should go about protecting themselves from criminals who aren't sheepish enough to run away when their intended victim yells for help and throws bottles at their feet. If someone works in a bad area of town, gets off their shift at 2 AM and has to walk through the darkened parking lot to their car, what measures do you think they should take to ensure their safety? There are a great many questions you haven't answered, but there's no time like the present to start.

Yeah, I do find that amusing.

Nabeshin writes a post saying:

You've noticed by now that your opponent will avoid drawing a line in the sand if at all possible during an argument. That's because when she states the particulars of her views in a clear-cut fashion, their irrationality can be pointed out. She prefers dancing around the yes/no questions and flinging ad hominem attacks, and she'll attempt the same thing when confronted with short-answer questions, claiming they're "drivel," but when she does this it starts becoming clear that she's really just telling you to pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. Insist that she make her viewpoints clear by answering open-ended questions and she'll quickly wilt.

If we can condense that mass of verbiage, it says: iverglas never answers questions and iverglas never states her positions on the issue.

So I write a post demonstrating that you had the answers to these questions IN 2006.

And you didn't reply to them then.

And here you are IN 2008 falsely alleging that I have never answered the questions on the table.

Unsurprisingly, given how back in 2006 you'd made this 100% false statement:

Basically, she feels that on as well as a ban on handguns, a law should be passed requiring any non-restricted firearm to be protected by 24-hour security measures both passive and active.

and things have gone pretty much the same in the interim.


So. Can I look forward to you saying, two years hence, that I have never answered the question of what firearms control measures I recommend?

Your whole post will be dismissed by her because of this-

"I'd also like to hear how you think law-abiding citizens should go about protecting themselves from criminals who aren't sheepish enough to run away when their intended victim yells for help and throws bottles at their feet. If someone works in a bad area of town, gets off their shift at 2 AM and has to walk through the darkened parking lot to their car, what measures do you think they should take to ensure their safety? There are a great many questions you haven't answered, but there's no time like the present to start."

Her response may look like this-
"I don't drive so what is your fucking point?"


That's iverstyle!

If someone works in a bad area of town, gets off their shift at 2 AM and has to walk through the darkened parking lot to their car, what measures do you think they should take to ensure their safety?

Offhand, I'd say get a union. What kind of fool accepts working conditions like that? (More to the point ... where do working conditions like that actually exist?)

You people still have a few of those things somewhere, don't you?

Why don't you quit while you're still in single digits?


What you haven't done is answer questions like "when is it justifiable to use deadly force in self-defense."


This was a fun thread, from one of my favourite deceased posters:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x21533

Self-defense with a pregnant woman...
Tue Nov-11-03 08:58 AM
DoNotRefill

I Wouldn't Use a Pregnant Woman for Self-Defense
Nov-11-03 12:34 PM #17
CO Liberal

iverglas
Tue Nov-11-03 09:54 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. very true ...

... In order to use force likely to cause serious injury or death, an individual must (a) reasonably apprehend serious injury or death, and (b) have no reasonable alternative, for avoiding the risk, than to use the level of force used. ...

From 2003 up to 2005, now:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x114619

iverglas
Tue Oct-18-05 05:09 PM
Response to Reply #37
42. sorry, it's all straw

This is indeed from the Criminal Code of Canada, but it is a straightforward statement of the longstanding common law of the self-defence justification: ...

... to 2006 ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x128919

iverglas
Wed Sep-20-06 09:01 PM
Response to Original message
2. such disregard for fact

<previous poster> "Now, back to that standard for determining a threat. That's the ultimate question in this thread, and this question has been AVOIDED by Iverglas."

Do yourself a searchy-wearchy, honey child. Maybe you'll find one of the, oh, several dozen posts in which I have stated the standard that has stood the test of many long years of common law, that is codified in the laws of civilized states, and that I support.

And maybe then you'll stop making statements that are not true. No way of knowing.

And this is the standard to which it's all referring:

http://www.canlii.org/ca/sta/c-46/sec34.html

34. (1) Every one who is unlawfully assaulted without having provoked the assault is justified in repelling force by force if the force he uses is not intended to cause death or grievous bodily harm and is no more than is necessary to enable him to defend himself.

Extent of justification

(2) Every one who is unlawfully assaulted and who causes death or grievous bodily harm in repelling the assault is justified if

(a) he causes it under reasonable apprehension of death or grievous bodily harm from the violence with which the assault was originally made or with which the assailant pursues his purposes; and

(b) he believes, on reasonable grounds, that he cannot otherwise preserve himself from death or grievous bodily harm.

I have absolutely no idea why you would falsely state that what I haven't done is answer questions like "when is it justifiable to use deadly force in self-defense".



In case you've forgotten, we're still waiting for you to cite a civilian self-defense shooting that you feel is justified.

In case you need reminding, it is not my job to do your bidding. Not that I actually even recall being asked the question.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=129988&mesg_id=129988

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003297197_shooting10m.html

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2003327014_satrdr28.html?syndication=rss

Saturday, October 28, 2006

By Joseph G. Culotti
Special to The Times

I am Danny Culotti's Uncle Joe. Danny made the front page of The Seattle Times on Oct. 10, 2006 ("Man killed at Westlake had set fire at mom's home in '01"). He started a fistfight with someone who had a concealed gun on his person on a Saturday morning in downtown Seattle.

... Put aside the fact that Danny was a beautiful, intelligent child who became schizophrenic at age 18 through no fault of his own; then ask how you would respond to someone attacking you with his fists.

Most normal people would respond by instinctively running or using their hands to defend themselves.

However, the shooter was not what we would think of as normal — he was carrying a gun and his immediate instinct was to shoot his attacker.

Many "normal" people are capable of killing another person in a brief moment of extreme anger, but this is uncommon because most of us do not carry lethal weapons and our bodies are not killing machines — a .357-caliber Magnum is.

... Danny won't be here to rejoice in a cure for schizophrenia, which we all hope will one day be found. May Danny rest in peace.

Joseph G. Culotti is a resident of Toronto, Canada, and professor of molecular and medical genetics at the University of Toronto.

Just in case you were idly curious about the actual facts of the case.


http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003484510_violence19m.html

Information in this article, originally published December 19, 2006, was corrected January 7, 2006. Due to incorrect information provided by the Seattle Police Department, a map that accompanied a story that ran in Tuesday's Local section about homicides in Seattle erroneously stated that the shooting death of Daniel Culotti had been ruled a justifiable homicide. The King County Prosecuting Attorney's Office has yet to make a final ruling.

I've been unable to find any more recent news, so I assume no charge was laid.

As we all know, that doesn't mean no crime was committed, let alone that nothing wrong was done.

Safe and secure storage laws sound ok in a principle free vacuum. The same applies to licensing requirements for firearms owners—who doesn’t support gun owners understanding safety rules, the law, and the consequences of breaking it? And what could possibly be wrong with the government keeping track of all weapons? Who doesn’t support keeping guns out of criminal hands?

One problem is that there is no vacuum. There are at least two schools of thought on gun rights.

School 1
1) There are no gun rights, only gun privileges. If it pleases those in power, they may bestow upon you the privilege of owning weapons under their terms. If it pleases them (for any reason whatsoever, or no reason at all), they can just as easily take your privilege away or change the terms.

2) You have a right to defend yourself, but no right to effective means to do so. So, for instance, if you are a sixty year old man repeatedly attacked in your own house by multiple teenage punks, you have the right to engage them in hand-to-hand combat. No matter how many trips to the hospital, no matter the number of death threats, no matter how many court orders “protecting” you, you have no right to effective means of self-defense, say for instance a shotgun.

If the choice is between being effectively armed and dying, it is your civic duty to die (unless the powers that be grant you favor—which you will probably have to pay for).

3) The less privately owned guns there are, the less crime there will be. This is self-evident TRUTH. Obviously guns not under the control of state actors should be minimized. (The fact that states are responsible for the vast majority of innocent deaths in modern history is studiously ignored.)

When this school, guided by no principles but achievability and political ambition, makes laws, you get schemes like the one in the District of Columbia. These are the people who cannot even bring themselves to condemn the criminal confiscation in New Orleans. They are not impressed by the Constitution, the rule of law (like mayor Nutter), or consistency ( like the character discussed here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x172584 ).

School 2
1) The right to self-defense is a basic human right, and the right to own, possess, and carry effective means of self-defense is part of that right. This must be so—the right to the ends without the right to possess the means is nonsensical.

2) The right to self-defense is not a gift of government—we have rights because we are human beings. Governments exists to protect rights. In fact, a government that does not protect rights has no excuse to exist.

3) Government may limit rights in order to meet compelling state interests—to protect the legitimate rights of others. It must do so using the least obtrusive means that will be effective. (For instance, no firing guns into the air to celebrate New Year’s day is a proper safety law in New York City. It is not a proper law if you are alone in the middle of your 100,000 acre ranch.)

Of course, according to the first school it is the height of paranoia for the second school to distrust them. Yes, registration and licensing has been used to confiscate weapons. But it could never happen again . . . ever. We are not trying to confiscate weapons (right now). Isn’t that enough?!

This school will, of course, do only what they think reasonable. (And their fundamental beliefs apparently will in no way affect their judgment. “Trust them.”)

Anyone who does not accept their shaky (non)denials is most likely mentally unstable, or so the party line goes. Here’s an example of a moderately clever non denial:

The fact that I insist that all those people's firearms be registered, and that they meet stringent criteria before being permitted to acquire and possess firearms, and that they comply with safe/secure storage rules -- and that I oppose handgun possession by members of the public – does not mean that I intend to try to keep whittling away at who may have firearms and what firearms they may have and what they may do with them. - iverglas

No it doesn’t. But trusting people (and those less familiar with the English language) will imagine that this sentence means that iverglas does not intend to “keep whittling away at who may have firearms and what firearms they may have and what they may do with them.” Of course she said no such thing. The underlining was a nice touch, however. It almost veils the fact that this sentence contains no useful information. It is a logical truism.

The bottom line? It would be stupid to attempt to attempt to negotiate in “good faith” regarding the regulation of your rights, when the person across the table refuses to admit the existence of those rights. If you add in the long history of gun control lies and deceptions, it is beyond stupid.

If School 1 will first admit the right to arms exists, we will be in a better position to negotiate the details of regulation. Until then, it is logical for School 2 to drag their feet on things they would otherwise support.

Has my vote!

:blush:

"It's an honor just to be nominated"

Maybe we can make a little certificate for you as well!


YAYAYAYAYAYAYAYAYAY!!!!!!!


Great post, made me happy.

......... Nah.

I'd rather sleep.

You folks enjoy your obvious obviousness, though.

Great synopsis, Nabeshin.

Man if there's anyone around here that deserves a TS more, I don't know who it could be.

"One always feels towards logic as Virgil bade Dante feel towards those who have been damned because of their colorless neutrality: Non ragionam di lor, ma guarda e passa -- 'Let us think no more about them, but look once and pass on.'" Will Durant, The Story of Philosophy (specifically, his criticisms of Aristotle's approach to logic).

I believe in keeping guns out of our inner cities, and that our leaders must say so in the face of the gun manufacturers’ lobby. –The Audacity of Hope, p215

Obama believe in total urban gun bans--keeping guns out of our inner cities. I bet you won't hear that on TV.

You are actually pretending to believe, and hoping to persuade others to believe (and undoubtedly succeeding), that Obama's statement means that he believes in total urban gun bans.

This is referred to as "cheek" in polite quarters. I tend to be less understated when I see it.

and it seems to me that that is what the words mean.

I would be open to the idea of it being a slip of the tongue if it were a spoken statement (and Obama was making that case), but it isn't and he isn't.

These are words in a published book, with his name on the cover, written by the former editor of a prestigious college paper. Every word was reviewed by Obama and editor(s). This is a book written by a person with obvious political ambition, and the relevant sentence is on a hot button issue.

But tell me, if "keeping guns out of our inner cities" doesn't mean "keeping guns out of our inner cities" what does it mean? And why is it pretending to conclude that "keeping guns out of our inner cities" means "keeping guns out of our inner cities"? Is it always pretending to accept words as meaning what they say?

I will not take the time to type out the surrounding chapter, but you can take my word that there is no hint of sarcasm or irony or satire in the context. (Or you can refuse to take my word, your choice.)

you're not safe out.

If you do know and you're pretending not to, you're not fit for decent company.


Is it always pretending to accept words as meaning what they say?

Is there a basis for your question?

Here's the one you really want to ask:

Is it reasonable and decent to say that words mean something that only an irrational person or a person acting with complete ill will would say?

Are you truly wishing to portray Barack Obama, who will very likely be the Democratic candidate in the next election, as either a moron or villain?

Ask yourself that one.

I don't hold with off-duty police officers having any greater access to firearms than anyone else. Which would mean virtually zero access to handguns, for starters.--iverglas http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x170687 (post 5)

Or do these words not mean what they say either?

If you start out with virtually zero access to handguns, why is it so hard to imagine a total (non police and military) ban on guns? There are people, otherwise sane, who have outrageous positions on guns.

Why don't you try just asking ME whether I am a moron or a villain? I have no idea why you might think I'm either one -- you quite possibly don't, quite possibly you were asking not whether I am (a) a moron, or (b) a villain, but whether I am (a) a moron or a villain, or (b) not a moron or a villain. Dunno, me. But go ahead and clarify and ask, if you like.

I don't hold with off-duty police officers having any greater access to firearms than anyone else. Which would mean virtually zero access to handguns, for starters.
Or do these words not mean what they say either?

"Either"? That would be: just as _____ words don't mean what they say, where ____ is ...?

Those words mean exactly what they say.

Did you have some reason for thinking otherwise? What might you have imagined they could have meant, other than what they said?

Unfortunately, I can't quite figure out what the words you typed in apparent reply mean:

If you start out with virtually zero access to handguns, why is it so hard to imagine a total (non police and military) ban on guns? There are people, otherwise sane, who have outrageous positions on guns.

Truly. I just don't know what that is supposed to mean.

It looks like some sort of loony slippery-slope argument. If you wish to pursue it, perhaps this will help you in the endeavour:



http://www.fstdt.com/winace/pics/index.htm#slippery_slope

Are you truly wishing to portray Barack Obama, who will very likely be the Democratic candidate in the next election, as either a moron or villain?


What's the answer?

You've made it to the thread.

Let's have it now. Response to post 25.

Oh, maybe I see.

Someone's incomprehension / decision to misrepresent what Barack Obama said.

Uh huh.

Because I'm capable of discerening what he said, and choose not to offer a false characterization of it, *I* am portraying Obama as a liar or an idiot ...


Interesting thought processes one sees around here.

It's pretty easy to figure out. If you say that he didn't mean what he clearly said then either he is a liar or an idiot.

David

You see how simple that is? I am sure of my position, so I don't have to use evasive maneuvers.

I see Obama as having a logical, legal, criminological, and historical blind spot/and or character issue. I wish he were alone.



Now I could have refused to answer this question until you answered mine in post #7. But that would be juvinile.

My question is simple and straightforward. According to you, the answer is painfully obvious. Then why are you dancing. Now there are painfully obviously truths. Would you spin and dance and duck and dodge and evade if I asked you what the sum of 2+2 was? Would you avoid answering to spare my feelings? That's touching, but I think I can handle it. (I also think there's another reason.)

So once again I put it to you:

But tell me, if "keeping guns out of our inner cities" doesn't mean "keeping guns out of our inner cities" what does it mean?

(Don't forget to show your work.)

You say: Obama believe in total urban gun bans

And really, I'm sorry, but it just isn't possible that someone who isn't either a moron or a villain would "believe in" such a thing.

But are you saying you believe he's a moron or a villain?

You say: No.

Well, that was easy, eh? Of course, if you'd done it on cross-examination in front of a jury, your evidence would just have lost all credibility.

Witness: I was standing in the middle of a 500-acre field and there was water landing on my head.
Counsel: So, was it raining or was there a sprinkler system in operation?
Witness: No.

And the jury will believe that there was water landing on your head ... Not.


You: Obama believes in total urban gun bans.
Me: So, is he a moron or a villain?
You: No.


Uh. Huh.


But tell me, if "keeping guns out of our inner cities" doesn't mean "keeping guns out of our inner cities" what does it mean?

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0068327/quotes

(on the pronunciation of "phlegm", Michael York giving English lessons, Cabaret)

Brian Roberts: P H is always pronounced as F, and, uh, you don't sound the G.
Natalia Landauer: Then why are they putting the G, please?
Brian Roberts: That's, that's a very good question, but rather difficult to explain.
Sally: Try, Brian.
Brian Roberts: Well, uh, it's just there.
Natalia Landauer: So, Mr. Professor, you do not know?
Brian Roberts: No.
Natalia Landauer: Then I am sorry. I cannot help you.


Why don't you take a stab at it? If "keeping guns out of our inner cities" doesn't mean "total urban gun bans", what could it possibly mean?

Do you really, really want to look so thick that you can't guess?

Witness: I was standing in the middle of a 500-acre field and there was water landing on my head.
Counsel: So, was it raining or was there a sprinkler system in operation?
Witness: No.

And the jury will believe that there was water landing on your head ... Not.


You are amusing. Your analogies, especially.

Let’ see:

1) There were children playing with water guns in the field
2) A underground pipe broke and was squirting water up into the air
3) Someone hidden in the grass was playing a practical joke
4) The witness simply didn’t know where the water came from (which could be the case even if 2 or 3 was the real reason).

Only a jury as stupid as . . . well, your analogy would conclude a witness was lying based on this exchange. As I said, you are amusing.
And you want to help me with my reasoning skills.


You: Obama believes in total urban gun bans.
Me: So, is he a moron or a villain?
You: No.


Uh. Huh.


Poor iverglas. Your premise is yours alone:


And really, I'm sorry, but it just isn't possible that someone who isn't either a moron or a villain would "believe in" such a thing.


I never accepted your premise; I simply pointed out that it follows from your premise that you are a moron or villain. Can you see the difference?

Now here’s an interesting detail: If I don’t accept your premise, I am not obligated to accept your conclusion no matter how good your logic is. See how that works? Garbage in, garbage out.

As I’ve said before, people I respect loose all perspective when the subject turns to guns. They make silly logical mistakes. They convince themselves that 2+2=17.315. They are not villains or fools, they’re just phobic. They fear guns on a primal, irrational level.

I don’t know Obama personally, but I think that he has this common problem, despite his obvious intelligence. The idea that urban people have gun rights with teeth and that guns can do good in cities is a real stretch for most Chicago politicians, and I appreciate that.

I might not be as old as some, but I am mature enough to know that people who have bizarre positions on hot button political issues are not necessarily evil or insane. Haven’t you learned that yet?!


Why don't you take a stab at it? If "keeping guns out of our inner cities" doesn't mean "total urban gun bans", what could it possibly mean?



You supposedly have the answer. I’ve asked for it several times, but you keep playing these games. Is this some juvenile strategy, or is it an empty bluff?



Do you really, really want to look so thick that you can't guess?


Wide of the mark again. Sigh. I feel bad telling an old woman this, but looking thick is not as big a problem as being thick. The pain of being embarrassed, admitting my error and learning is less than the pain of refusing to admit my error, refusing to learn, and being a fool for the rest of my life.* As an old man told me in my youth, there’s no fool like an old fool and there’s no fool like an educated fool. I’m trying to avoid becoming an educated fool.


So yes, if you have a reasonable alternate meaning that takes into account. . .


1) Obama’s facility with language (including his serving as the Harvard Law Review editor).
2) The fact that he was touching the “third rail of American Politics” and he knew it.
3) The fact that he is extremely ambitious and was obviously considering presidential politics.
4) The fact that the book was reviewed by an editor or editors (that is, professional language experts) who knew all of the above who would have raised any miscommunication to him.
5) The fact that he had to review the book with any issues raised and approve the final draft.


. . . and that can be derived from the words themselves (and the context of Obama’s life) by all means share it. (Or don’t, I tire of this game/bluff/BS.)









*PS. Sticking to your guns when you know you’re wrong can make things worse. For example see this thread http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x168492#168755 .

First you accused me of misrepresenting the CDC position. This was demonstrated to be false. You sputtered, used a false analogy and finally returned to your original (false) point. I couldn’t have systematically wiped the floor with your arguments if you had admitted you were wrong in the first place. Trying to save face doesn't always help, even in the short term.

Obama believe in total urban gun bans

It's a false statement. You persist in making yourself look too stupid to know what the real statement meant, your choice.


I feel bad telling an old woman this, but looking thick is not as big a problem as being thick.

I don't feel at all bad telling an ignorant pubescent boy that he is ... well, an ignorant pubescent boy. Gosh, I wonder whether there's one around here for whom I could arrange an hour with Miss Manners ...


First you accused me of misrepresenting the CDC position. This was demonstrated to be false.

I can't believe this. You are seriously still persisting in retailing this total falsehood -- and building another one around it? I accused you of doing exactly what you did. And you demonstrated nothing except your willingness to persist in a falsehood you had been demonstrated to be retailing.


I have reached my conclusion. You are not unwilling to speak the truth, you are incapable of understanding what it is.

It's a false statement. You persist in making yourself look too stupid to know what the real statement meant, your choice.

You have no response, and it has to be abundantly clear why. Hence I only look stupid to the very stupid.

I don't feel at all bad telling an ignorant pubescent boy that he is ... well, an ignorant pubescent boy. Gosh, I wonder whether there's one around here for whom I could arrange an hour with Miss Manners ...

An ignorant pubescent boy could wipe the floor with a fair percentage of your arguments also. That's the problem. It's not even sporting.

Of course I am guilty of doing "exactly what {I} did." LOL. I conceded it late in the thread. I am not guilty of misrepresenting the CDC, however.

I have reached my conclusion. You are not unwilling to speak the truth, you are incapable of understanding what it is.

An appropriate conclusion, given your grasp of reality (post 44).

Why don't you try just asking ME whether I am a moron or a villain?


I'm easy. Are you a moron? Are you a villain? Are you both?


I have no idea why you might think I'm either one . . .

It's not me, its you. Or something like that. . .

Observe:
In the OP, I said

I believe in keeping guns out of our inner cities, and that our leaders must say so in the face of
the gun manufacturers’ lobby. –The Audacity of Hope, p215

Obama believe{s} in total urban gun bans--keeping guns out of our inner cities. I bet you won't hear that on TV.


According to you, Obama obviously didn’t say what he meant. Actually believing in total urban gun bans would make him a “villain” or a “moron.”


So a person who “believes in” keeping guns out the inner cities would have ill intent. I happen to agree with this version of you (except, of course, for people who have been deceived into gun control). But there is another version of you who disagrees (*post 25*):

I would like to live in a society where there were no firearms--iverglas


It cannot possibly be villainous to believe in something (in the sense Obama used the term) and not villainous to desire it. So, per your request, I ask you—are you a villain?

“Moron” requires a little more detail.

I would like to live in a society where there were no firearms, but I recognize that as an absurd aspiration. I live in a society where people hunt for food, where people raise livestock and grow crops that are threatened by predators and pests, where people make a living taking tourists hunting, where people need firearms in order to enforce the law and protect the public and in some cases to help to ensure that they can go about lawful business safely. And even where people play with guns as a hobby, which there is nothing inherently objectionable in.—iverglass (*post 25*)

Now you would like a gun-free society, but recognize that that is an absurd aspiration—accommodations must be made for special classes:

a) People hunt for food. True, but not in “inner cities”
b) People raise livestock and grow corps, but not in “inner cities”
c) People make a living taking tourists hunting, but not in “inner cities”
d) People need firearms in order to enforce the law and protect the public—Obama has always supported armed police, security and military. The context of his life shows he didn’t mean them.
e) People need guns “in some cases to help to ensure that they can go about lawful business safely.” This is a region of possible disagreement. I’m not sure whether he intends an exception for ordinary civilians to protect their money and other property (but not their bodies and lives, of course).
f) People “play with guns as a hobby, which there is nothing inherently objectionable in.” Yes, but one can easily pursue one’s hobby at ranges and sporting events outside the “inner cities.” In fact, a city can easily achieve this through simple zoning.

So with one possible exception, Obama’s stated position (as opposed to what he really meant, LOL) harmonizes perfectly with you. Perfectly.
Now we know that if Obama actually meant what he said, it would make him moron. This begs the question. And so, per your request, I ask you—are you a moron?

To summarize:

Are you a moron? Are you a villain? Or, as your words apparently require, are you both?

I would like to live in a society where there were no firearms--iverglas

It cannot possibly be villainous to believe in something (in the sense Obama used the term) and not villainous to desire it.

The "sense <in which> Obama used the term" believe has fuck all to do with anything.

It is WHAT he said he believes in: he believes in doing something, i.e. he advocates doing something.

And if you can't see the difference between someone saying "I would like X" (followed by the disclaimer you omitted, acknowledging the plain absurdity of the preference) and someone saying "I think we should do Y", where "X" is a noun and "Y" is a verb ... well, professor, I am sorry, but I cannot help you.

But hey, lemme try.

I would like a pizza. Now, is that different from saying that I think we believe in stealing pizzas?


edit:

Oh, btw -- I'm sure you realize this was all just for the sake of argument and to try to help you improve your reasoning skills, since Obama didn't say he believed in what you allege you said he believe in, of course.

like a disarmed populace in all of our inner cities, it is not only wrong to do something to achieve it, it is wrong to desire it. Both require ill intent.

You desire a gun free world, not merely gun free inner cities, so Obama is modest compared to you.

As to a gun free world being absurd, what has that to do with villainy? Is a clansman who desires an all white world, but realizes the absurdity of trying to achieve it, obeys the law and only fantasizes about genocide a moral paragon?

Oh, and your tacit admission that your own words condemn you as a moron is duly noted.




And iverglas, you may catch me in a logical error someday--I am fallible--but I need help from you to improve my reasoning skills like I needed your Miss Manners impersonation earlier. Both are funny, though.

If something is inherently bad. . .
like a disarmed populace in all of our inner cities, it is not only wrong to do something to achieve it, it is wrong to desire it. Both require ill intent.

Smite me! I have sinned in my heart!

Of course, there's that "if" ... and I guess you just haven't proved the truth of that premise yet, have you? Nope. Let alone that it is anything but straw derived from equivocation in this particular discussion. Oh well.

If the dog hadn't stopped to pee, it would have caught the rabit.

If you had a true premise to stand on, you might have said something meaningful.

Of course, having a true premise isn't all it takes. The conclusions still have to be sane.

Here's where you seem to need not only a course in constitutional law, but also a course in criminal law. To help you understand the difference between "desire" (perhaps "wishful thinking" might be more appropriate here) and INTENT.

I might be sitting here desiring a lightning bolt to descend from the skies and strike you in the left ear. What intent am I manifesting?


Oh, and your tacit admission that your own words condemn you as a moron is duly noted.

And your twisting of reality, that being obviously the only arrow in your quiver, repeatedly demonstrates that you're pathetic.


I need help from you to improve my reasoning skills like I needed your Miss Manners impersonation earlier.

You're right. You do. As you have once again demonstrated. On both counts.

If you had a true premise to stand on, you might have said something meaningful.

Of course I didn't have a true premise, I had your premise. I don't even agree with it, but that doesn't mean I can't see it's consequences.


Here's where you seem to need not only a course in constitutional law, but also a course in criminal law. To help you understand the difference between "desire" (perhaps "wishful thinking" might be more appropriate here) and INTENT.

Which is, no doubt, why you have carefully avoided the constitutional and legal aspects of the OP to concentrate on "respect" "who has used that term on this board" and other weighty issues. So if you meant "intent" in the legal sense, good for you. You got me. I guess your morality is analogous to (not equal to) the clansman's. Legally, of course, you are blameless--as you should be.

Of course I didn't have a true premise, I had your premise.

Your premise, you person who is evidently incapable of following a trail of breadcrumbs for two metres, was this:

something is inherently bad. . .
like a disarmed populace in all of our inner cities

Can you not even TRY???

Your complete "thought" went:

*IF* something is inherently bad. . . like a disarmed populace in all of our inner cities,
<*THEN*> it is not only wrong to do something to achieve it, it is wrong to desire it.
Both require ill intent.


IF your premise -- A DISARMED POPULACE IN ALL OF OUR INNER CITIES IS BAD -- were true, you would be able to use it to draw a conclusion.

You have not established that it is true.

The main thing, though, apart from the failure to establish the truth of the premise, is that you have not established that IT IS RELEVANT TO ANYTHING. It would only be relevant to something if it were being proposed by someone.


Moving on -- you have made the ludicrous assertion that it is "wrong to desire" something. THAT is absolutely nothing short of the THOUGHT POLICE.

YOU apparently want to police people's THOUGHTS. YOU would have impeached Jimmy Carter if he had not admitted to lusting after other women in his heart.


And then you made the even more ludicrous assertion that DESIRING something that YOU regard as "bad" REQUIRES -- i.e. is evidence of the existence of, since if "y" REQUIRES "x" then "x" is a necessary condition and "y" can't exist without it -- "evil intent".

That one isn't just ludicrous, it's FALSE and ignoble.

I WOULD LIKE a world free of pigeons. But I have never done a single thing to harm a pigeon, and I have never INTENDED to harm a pigeon. I have actually taken a wounded pigeon to the bird rescue centre. When it comes to pigeons, I HAVE NO EVIL INTENT. And yet there you are, accusing me intending to do evil things to pigeons.


You patched together a bunch of pieces of poo and came up with a great big hunk of poo.


Which is, no doubt, why you have carefully avoided the constitutional and legal aspects of the OP

You should try not pretending not to see what's in front of your nose.

Post 79 was written before the one you have just replied to ... and oh dear, you haven't replied to it.

Just makes you look foolish, you know?

Post 79 was written even though YOU RAISED NO CONSTITUTIONAL OR LEGAL ASPECT of anything in your OP. Your OP was a pile of poop, pooped out in public for the sole purpose of attempting to portray people who disagree with you about firearms policy as heartless, dishonest scum who are -- for some entirely incomprehensible and in fact unstated reason -- bent on getting women and children killed by big bad men.

If you and your chums could once come up with some minimally comprehensible explanation for the behaviour of all these vile people and organizations -- the ones bent on getting women and children killed by big bad men -- well, I'd like to hear it.

You wanna adopt this one?

http://www.jpfo.org/filegen-n-z/ragingagainstselfdefense.htm

In my experience, the common thread in anti-gun people is rage. Either anti-gun people harbor more rage than others, or they're less able to cope with it appropriately. Because they can't handle their own feelings of rage, they are forced to use defense mechanisms in an unhealthy manner. Because they wrongly perceive others as seeking to harm them, they advocate the disarmament of ordinary people who have no desire to harm anyone. So why do anti-gun people have so much rage and why are they unable to deal with it in appropriate ways? Consider for a moment that the largest and most hysterical anti-gun groups include disproportionately large numbers of women, African-Americans and Jews. And virtually all of the organizations that claim to speak for these "oppressed people" are stridently anti-gun. Not coincidentally, among Jews, Blacks and women there are many "professional victims" who have little sense of identity outside of their victimhood.

It's all yours, if you want it! If not, do make an effort to come up with something better than

I see Obama as having a logical, legal, criminological, and historical blind spot/and or character issue.

... although I'm mighty curious about that "character issue", if you wanted to expand on that ...

IF your premise -- A DISARMED POPULACE IN ALL OF OUR INNER CITIES IS BAD -- were true, you would be able to use it to draw a conclusion.

YOUR premise on villainy.

Post 79 was written before the one you have just replied to ... and oh dear, you haven't replied to it.

Canadian law doesn't count, even if I had seen that post first.

Just makes you look foolish, you know?

To a fool, perhaps. It was about irrelevant Canadian law. It didn't address the OP in any way that I noticed.

Post 79 was written even though YOU RAISED NO CONSTITUTIONAL OR LEGAL ASPECT of anything in your OP.

Obviously false to anyone who reads it.

YOU apparently want to police people's THOUGHTS.

More transparent than most of your BS. I said no such thing. Thoughts do speak to morality, however.

Intent.

I've already conceded that "intent" was too strong, as you well know. Continuing on that is dishonest. Wishing things does speak to morality, however.

I'm mighty curious

You will remain so unless you read the answer in a comment addressed to someone else.

Obama supports extending the assault weapons ban, limits on gun sales, and a national law against carrying concealed weapons, with exceptions for retired police and military personnel.



Source: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/ (search for "Huckabee jokes about Obama ducking a gunman")



If this is a correct attribution, it is a proposed use of federal power to overrule state concealed carry laws. This merits investigation.

If you don't agree with something I call "common sense", then you are not a sensible person.

If you don't agree with something I call "reasonable", then you are not a reasonable person.

If you don't agree with something I call "sensible", then you are a senseless person.

Intentionally vague terms.

Just like polls asking if people want lower taxes or better education for their children. The answer is always YES.


The problem of course is that there are not the right questions, as these issues are not in contention. What's in contention, is method used to achieve these goals, and cost associated with these efforts.


I think everyone in the forum agrees that we should strive to keep violent criminals from getting firearms, where the contention occurs, is in the method used to keep violent criminals from getting said firearms.

I think we should arrest and prosecute people who lie on the forms necessary to purchase a firearm.

This seems "Reasonable" to me.



What other have suggested is that we round up the 99.9% of firearms that have not been misused in an effort to prevent further crimes. This is in the face of the fact the the two large cities who have tried this approach for the last 20 years (Chicago and DC) have far more crime with the type of weapon they will not let your register (and possess) than nearly anywhere else in the country.

I believe this method is flawed, and is therefore un-"Reasonable" to me.