Grammatron
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2003
- Messages
- 5,444
CFLarsen said:
Give me the money and I'll do it.
U.S. House kills gun proposal
- Thread starter Orwell
- Start date
Give me the money and I'll do it.
CFLarsen said:
I strongly believe that there is a right of free speech. I also recognize that certain speech might be illegal. I don't know where the line is, do you? Does the fact that I cannot clearly define a speech line impact in any way the value of free speech? Would you say "well this free speech thing must be stupid since you cant define it to my satisfaction?" It appears that we have court cases on a regular basis on this topic, don't you think that it would have been defined long before this, with the Teutonic precision that you seem to crave, if it were humanly possible?
You seem to be a black and white guy, some issues are not black and white. You have latched onto one and seem to be playing a game of "gotcha".
Ed said:
It most certainly is a case of black and white. You can own a colt, but not a bazooka. Both are weapons, but only one can be owned. Since there is legislation, then that right to own weapons is not absolute, it has to be qualified. And it is, by law. It should be, by gun proponents.
Somewhere inbetween a colt and a bazooka, the line is drawn. But where? And why?
Considering the deep knowledge gun-proponents seem to have of all things related to this issue, why is it so darn hard to find out where that line is?
Haven't people thought long and deep about this before?
CFLarsen said:
OK, this is a miss. You are insisting for an answer for a question that has no black and white answer. You avoid adressing other areas of nebulosity in law because they demonstrate that my point is correct yet you insist on asking a question that can only be answered by litigation, discussion, compomise and the realities of the day. That is intellectually dishonest. You are simply refusing to understand because of your hatred of firearms and belief in the wisdom of government control (and elemental hatred of american society). This is not, and cannot be a rational discussion and I am a fool for trying.
Where is Steve Grenard when we need him.
Ed said:
How is it nebulous? There are laws regarding which weapons you can own. These laws are constitutional. The question can be answered, and it should be answered.
Ed said:
I am asking a question that goes to the heart of the issue of the right to own weapons. That cannot possibly be considered intellectually dishonest.
Ed said:
It has nothing to do with how I feel about firearms and belief in the wisdom of government control. I am asking a question, for chrissakes!
Ed said:
Of course it can be rationally assessed what weapons you can own or not. What seems to be the problem is, where do you draw the line?
If this question cannot be answered, how will you ever justify the right to own a weapon, when you can't even define what weapon you are talking about?
That's the problem, isn't it?
Originally posted by CFLarsen
How is it nebulous? There are laws regarding which speech you can engage in. These laws are constitutional. The question can be answered, and it should be answered.
I am asking a question that goes to the heart of the issue of the right to free speech. That cannot possibly be considered intellectually dishonest.
Of course it can be rationally assessed what speech you can engage in. What seems to be the problem is, where do you draw the line?
If this question cannot be answered, how will you ever justify the right to free speech, when you can't even define what speech you are talking about?
That's the problem, isn't it?
it is intellectually dishonest if you cannot, or will not, draw the obvious parallel.
In any event you have your answer. "it depends". If there were a black and white solution there would be no hopping about over .50's or "assult rifles" or any other weapon. Continuing to insist, and avoiding my question is just silly.
How is it nebulous? There are laws regarding which speech you can engage in. These laws are constitutional. The question can be answered, and it should be answered.
I am asking a question that goes to the heart of the issue of the right to free speech. That cannot possibly be considered intellectually dishonest.
Of course it can be rationally assessed what speech you can engage in. What seems to be the problem is, where do you draw the line?
If this question cannot be answered, how will you ever justify the right to free speech, when you can't even define what speech you are talking about?
That's the problem, isn't it?
it is intellectually dishonest if you cannot, or will not, draw the obvious parallel.
In any event you have your answer. "it depends". If there were a black and white solution there would be no hopping about over .50's or "assult rifles" or any other weapon. Continuing to insist, and avoiding my question is just silly.
As far as I can tell this is where we are.
I cannot provide a black and white, dewey the dunce definition of where the line is for firearms ownership. Therefore the notion of gun ownership is intellectually bankrupt.
You cannot provide a black and white, dewey the dunce definition of where the line is for free speech. Therefore the notion of free speech is intellectually bankrupt.
How very productive.
Tell you what, you win, how's that?
I cannot provide a black and white, dewey the dunce definition of where the line is for firearms ownership. Therefore the notion of gun ownership is intellectually bankrupt.
You cannot provide a black and white, dewey the dunce definition of where the line is for free speech. Therefore the notion of free speech is intellectually bankrupt.
How very productive.
Tell you what, you win, how's that?
In the U.S., one can own any weapon that is not restricted by law.
Right now, dangerous ordinances (things that go boom, not including cannons) are about the only thing one cannot own.
Those are the facts. Don't like my .50 cal, stay in Denmark, you wont have to worry about it.
Right now, dangerous ordinances (things that go boom, not including cannons) are about the only thing one cannot own.
Those are the facts. Don't like my .50 cal, stay in Denmark, you wont have to worry about it.
