3 Laws Could Reduce Firearm Deaths By 90%

Duck and cover
bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19316
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

3 Laws Could Reduce Firearm Deaths By 90%

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Sep 15, 2016 6:49 pm

1, Background checks for gun sales.

2. Background checks for ammo sales.

3. identification requirement for firearms

https://science.slashdot.org/story/16/0 ... =popbyskid
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Paul Anthony
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2783
Joined: Sun Apr 23, 2006 9:23 pm
Custom Title: The other god
Location: The desert

Re: 3 Laws Could Reduce Firearm Deaths By 90%

Post by Paul Anthony » Thu Sep 15, 2016 8:34 pm

Are we supposed to be impressed by the opinions of "scholars"?
People who say ALWAYS and NEVER are usually wrong, part of the time.
Science answers questions, Philosophy questions answers.
Make sense, not war.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19316
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: 3 Laws Could Reduce Firearm Deaths By 90%

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Sep 15, 2016 8:52 pm

Of course......but I fear another Angel attack on competency is in the offing.

why do you denigrate expertise? Never to be accepted unquestionably...but as a good starting point??? You know: as opposed to the opposite: taking a paid shills whorish statement as dogma to be regurgitated incessantly?
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Fab Yolis
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1417
Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2014 12:46 am

Re: 3 Laws Could Reduce Firearm Deaths By 90%

Post by Fab Yolis » Thu Sep 15, 2016 11:33 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:1, Background checks for gun sales.

2. Background checks for ammo sales.

3. identification requirement for firearms

https://science.slashdot.org/story/16/0 ... =popbyskid
3 laws for creating a legislative beachhead to destroy the 2nd amendment.
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes."
- Mark Twain

The Terrifying Brilliance of the Islamic Memeplex

User avatar
Paul Anthony
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2783
Joined: Sun Apr 23, 2006 9:23 pm
Custom Title: The other god
Location: The desert

Re: 3 Laws Could Reduce Firearm Deaths By 90%

Post by Paul Anthony » Fri Sep 16, 2016 1:06 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Of course......but I fear another Angel attack on competency is in the offing.

why do you denigrate expertise? Never to be accepted unquestionably...but as a good starting point??? You know: as opposed to the opposite: taking a paid shills whorish statement as dogma to be regurgitated incessantly?
Expertise in a specialized field can be valuable to a discussion about that field. The "scholars" quoted in the link lack that specialized knowledge, making their opinions no more valid than yours or mine.
People who say ALWAYS and NEVER are usually wrong, part of the time.
Science answers questions, Philosophy questions answers.
Make sense, not war.

psychiatry is a scam
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1647
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2013 12:23 am
Custom Title: eugenics never stopped

Re: 3 Laws Could Reduce Firearm Deaths By 90%

Post by psychiatry is a scam » Fri Sep 16, 2016 1:11 am

has anybody joined Slashdot ?

I got a warning about the ( certificate of authenticity ? ) :burn:

User avatar
TJrandom
Has No Life
Posts: 11996
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Custom Title: Salt of the earth
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.

Re: 3 Laws Could Reduce Firearm Deaths By 90%

Post by TJrandom » Fri Sep 16, 2016 1:52 am

Venerable Kwan Tam Woo wrote:
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:1, Background checks for gun sales.

2. Background checks for ammo sales.

3. identification requirement for firearms

https://science.slashdot.org/story/16/0 ... =popbyskid
3 laws for creating a legislative beachhead to destroy the 2nd amendment.
The second amendment needs amendment. It doesn`t need to be destroyed - but its current interpretation indeed does destroy.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19316
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: 3 Laws Could Reduce Firearm Deaths By 90%

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Fri Sep 16, 2016 4:03 am

Paul Anthony wrote:Expertise in a specialized field can be valuable to a discussion about that field. The "scholars" quoted in the link lack that specialized knowledge, making their opinions no more valid than yours or mine.
Hey Paulie. Good response. It is the proper non-Woo approach to an argument from expertise. Do you have a link for how you evaluated the experts involved? OMG===or did you just make up this evaluation all on your own? Darn....its held in abeyance ... as I hate withdrawing a compliment.

For grins, I'll google. Not your imagination and anti Science position, but the actual qualifications of the group publishing their report........yeah..... I don't have high hopes for you Paulie......do hope I'm wrong.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19316
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: 3 Laws Could Reduce Firearm Deaths By 90%

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Fri Sep 16, 2016 4:43 am

Well, the Lancet does have a good reputation especially for medical issues which are supported by statistical studies such as the gun law effectiveness here. The google is somewhat hampered by the Lancet having a paid for fire wall.

Help me out Paulie.... what expertise do you see as missing? Please confirm you are not just kneejerking yourself to a paroxysm of Gun Right's paranoia? IE--I assume you take the article as "anti-gun" since its not published by the NRA?? (Well known experts in.............. what?) But what the team did was evaluate MANY different gun laws trying to determine which ones were effective or not. Not really anti-gun unless you prefer ignorance as your guide.

So what is your source for evaluating their expertise? Was it that merely having a PHD or MD behind your name does not make you qualified??? Everyone knows that. .... did you go any deeper???

Inquiring minds want to know.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Fab Yolis
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1417
Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2014 12:46 am

Re: 3 Laws Could Reduce Firearm Deaths By 90%

Post by Fab Yolis » Mon Sep 19, 2016 12:57 am

TJrandom wrote:
Venerable Kwan Tam Woo wrote:
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:1, Background checks for gun sales.

2. Background checks for ammo sales.

3. identification requirement for firearms

https://science.slashdot.org/story/16/0 ... =popbyskid
3 laws for creating a legislative beachhead to destroy the 2nd amendment.
The second amendment needs amendment. It doesn`t need to be destroyed - but its current interpretation indeed does destroy.
No, it doesn't need amendment at all, and there is very little room to misinterpret it if you actually read what the Founding Fathers had to say about it.
Last edited by Fab Yolis on Mon Sep 19, 2016 5:28 am, edited 1 time in total.
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes."
- Mark Twain

The Terrifying Brilliance of the Islamic Memeplex

Fab Yolis
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1417
Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2014 12:46 am

Re: 3 Laws Could Reduce Firearm Deaths By 90%

Post by Fab Yolis » Mon Sep 19, 2016 1:03 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Paul Anthony wrote:Expertise in a specialized field can be valuable to a discussion about that field. The "scholars" quoted in the link lack that specialized knowledge, making their opinions no more valid than yours or mine.
Hey Paulie. Good response. It is the proper non-Woo approach to an argument from expertise.
You do notice that Paul said that expertise "can be valuable to" discussion, rather than calling it the ultimate or principle deciding factor in a discussion, right? Why are experts valuable? Because they have the greatest capacity to bring reason and evidence to the discussion!
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes."
- Mark Twain

The Terrifying Brilliance of the Islamic Memeplex

User avatar
TJrandom
Has No Life
Posts: 11996
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Custom Title: Salt of the earth
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.

Re: 3 Laws Could Reduce Firearm Deaths By 90%

Post by TJrandom » Mon Sep 19, 2016 7:17 am

Venerable Kwan Tam Woo wrote:
TJrandom wrote:
Venerable Kwan Tam Woo wrote:
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:1, Background checks for gun sales.

2. Background checks for ammo sales.

3. identification requirement for firearms

https://science.slashdot.org/story/16/0 ... =popbyskid
3 laws for creating a legislative beachhead to destroy the 2nd amendment.
The second amendment needs amendment. It doesn`t need to be destroyed - but its current interpretation indeed does destroy.
No, it doesn't need amendment at all, and there is very little room to misinterpret it if you actually read what the Founding Fathers had to say about it.
Yes it does.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19316
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: 3 Laws Could Reduce Firearm Deaths By 90%

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Mon Sep 19, 2016 9:26 am

Isn't it pretty OBVIOUS that the Founding Fathers never considered cheap and readily available rapid fire fire arms that could shoot 50 people without the crowd being able to respond?

CONTEXT: the 2nd Amend was written in the time of muskets. You do the math.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Poodle
True Skeptic
Posts: 10854
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Post-bloom
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: 3 Laws Could Reduce Firearm Deaths By 90%

Post by Poodle » Mon Sep 19, 2016 11:40 am

Wow - there's a title for a novel if ever I saw one ... In the Time of Muskrats. Not entirely original, I admit, but it has a certain je ne sais quoi about it.

Oh - muskets. Perhaps not, then.

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5208
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: The Baby-eating Bishop

Re: 3 Laws Could Reduce Firearm Deaths By 90%

Post by ElectricMonk » Mon Sep 19, 2016 11:45 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Isn't it pretty OBVIOUS that the Founding Fathers never considered cheap and readily available rapid fire fire arms that could shoot 50 people without the crowd being able to respond?

CONTEXT: the 2nd Amend was written in the time of muskets. You do the math.
you could go further. given how irrelevant the revolutionaries were in expelling the King of England (hint: it was the French who won the War of Independence), one might consider the 2nd Amendment little more than a way to restore self-confidence and to create a backup cache of the rifles the French gave to the Americans.

The Founding Fathers were acutely aware that their fledgling nation didn't stand a chance against an unhindered European Power, but it would not have done to let their new citizens know that.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19316
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: 3 Laws Could Reduce Firearm Deaths By 90%

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Mon Sep 19, 2016 9:13 pm

EM--quite right....and if not being redundant, they didn't do that "for us" but rather for themselves in their struggle against Great Britain. As always: Nations acting in their own self interest while generally succeeding in BS's their citizens as to the real play.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Paul Anthony
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2783
Joined: Sun Apr 23, 2006 9:23 pm
Custom Title: The other god
Location: The desert

Re: 3 Laws Could Reduce Firearm Deaths By 90%

Post by Paul Anthony » Mon Sep 19, 2016 11:00 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:EM--quite right....and if not being redundant, they didn't do that "for us" but rather for themselves in their struggle against Great Britain. As always: Nations acting in their own self interest while generally succeeding in BS's their citizens as to the real play.
I know you won't agree. Or even check it out. Just doesn't fit with your narrative, but the Founders were wary of powerful governments and intended the armed citizens to provide a check on government that might attempt to become oppressive. This is evident in many letters written back and forth between the guys writing the Constitution. It's also why they included Article 5, in case the President, the Judiciary and both houses of Congress started ignoring the wishes of the people. Of course, that would never happen. :twisted:

And it was their intention that citizens have weapons comparable to whatever the military had at the time. Of course, they didn't envision a time when the military would have nuclear weapons or tanks or ICBM's or even drones.
People who say ALWAYS and NEVER are usually wrong, part of the time.
Science answers questions, Philosophy questions answers.
Make sense, not war.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19316
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: 3 Laws Could Reduce Firearm Deaths By 90%

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Tue Sep 20, 2016 12:14 am

Well Paul....that is a valid comment. NOTE: I don't complain you are imposing yourself between EM and myself. NOTE: I'm not complaining you think every comment is directed at you. Can you drop those comments from your repertoire??? You know... in an effort not to be a flaming hypocrite?

I think a couple of points are being made none of which negates any other. In the Main: we won the Rev War because of France and Britain fighting over the West Indies.... a well armed militia was almost negligible except for the underwhelming effort applied by Britain...but its debatable. When elephants are fighting...how important are the mice???

You say "I should check it out"....but you provide NO LINK AT ALL. So no...I won't go on a Snipe Hunt looking for some authority that might agree with whatever BS Fantasy you think is right. Your linkless/often made up positions come too often. FIX IT. Provide a link.....and I'll certainly read it with interest. Thats how I get better, and how you are stuck in a rut.
the Founders were wary of powerful governments and intended the armed citizens to provide a check on government that might attempt to become oppressive. This is evident in many letters written back and forth between the guys writing the Constitution. It's also why they included Article 5, in case the President,
Ummmm.....complete and total horse {!#%@} marking YOU as a Wing Nut. Militias are formed BY AND FOR the governments purposes....its own over throw not one of them. Please link to a letter demonstrating this idiotic fantasy of the NRA. Article 5==exactly the opposite of what you post. Gubments to be changed and even "over thrown" AT THE BALLOT BOX...following the Constitution.
And it was their intention that citizens have weapons comparable to whatever the military had at the time. Of course, they didn't envision a time when the military would have nuclear weapons or tanks or ICBM's or even drones.
So which is it?

Silly Hooman.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
TJrandom
Has No Life
Posts: 11996
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Custom Title: Salt of the earth
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.

Re: 3 Laws Could Reduce Firearm Deaths By 90%

Post by TJrandom » Tue Sep 20, 2016 12:17 am

When it comes time to amend it, it will not matter what the Founders thought, but rather what Americans think is needed today.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19316
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: 3 Laws Could Reduce Firearm Deaths By 90%

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Tue Sep 20, 2016 12:41 am

TJ--always true. But in USA...it would take generations to get an amendment to change the 2nd Amend. much easier and likely: change the SCOTUS opinion on point. Easy to do with all within appropriate legal/constitutional precepts. Both sides outraged as set positions always are. Lots more death and misery to get there.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5208
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: The Baby-eating Bishop

Re: 3 Laws Could Reduce Firearm Deaths By 90%

Post by ElectricMonk » Tue Sep 20, 2016 5:22 am

What they were wary about was dissenters who would try to hand the Colonies to one European power or another: only about half the people supported the revolutionaries.
But the main point is to create militias to organize resistance against royalists or others taking over locally.
There is no scenario today or back then that would support the distribution of weapons among the population without an organized effort to train them in their use and as a unit.

User avatar
TJrandom
Has No Life
Posts: 11996
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Custom Title: Salt of the earth
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.

Re: 3 Laws Could Reduce Firearm Deaths By 90%

Post by TJrandom » Tue Sep 20, 2016 6:40 am

Exactly - why you have police - local and state, as well as the National Guard - militias all.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19316
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: 3 Laws Could Reduce Firearm Deaths By 90%

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Tue Sep 20, 2016 7:06 am

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_(United_States) has a good short review...including the fact that the definition/use/function of militia has changed over time. some good federalist and letters quotes supporting Pauls position.

Central problem with the Federalist Papers and letters: they say just about everything as it is a collection of people disagreeing and challenging one another. What counts: is what is IN the constitution...and even MORE IMPORTANTLY...what the Supremes sing.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Fab Yolis
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1417
Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2014 12:46 am

Re: 3 Laws Could Reduce Firearm Deaths By 90%

Post by Fab Yolis » Wed Sep 21, 2016 1:30 am

TJrandom wrote:
Venerable Kwan Tam Woo wrote:
TJrandom wrote:
Venerable Kwan Tam Woo wrote:
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:1, Background checks for gun sales.

2. Background checks for ammo sales.

3. identification requirement for firearms

https://science.slashdot.org/story/16/0 ... =popbyskid
3 laws for creating a legislative beachhead to destroy the 2nd amendment.
The second amendment needs amendment. It doesn`t need to be destroyed - but its current interpretation indeed does destroy.
No, it doesn't need amendment at all, and there is very little room to misinterpret it if you actually read what the Founding Fathers had to say about it.
Yes it does.
In what way? What part of the words "a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" do you have a problem with exactly?
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes."
- Mark Twain

The Terrifying Brilliance of the Islamic Memeplex

Fab Yolis
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1417
Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2014 12:46 am

Re: 3 Laws Could Reduce Firearm Deaths By 90%

Post by Fab Yolis » Wed Sep 21, 2016 1:35 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Isn't it pretty OBVIOUS that the Founding Fathers never considered cheap and readily available rapid fire fire arms that could shoot 50 people without the crowd being able to respond?

CONTEXT: the 2nd Amend was written in the time of muskets. You do the math.
Seriously?? The 2nd Amendment is about the right of self defence against would-be tyrants, hence it refers to "arms" rather than "muskets" because the right is effectively useless if the people do not have access to firearms of at least commensurate quality to those held by the uniformed DOGS of would-be tyrants.
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes."
- Mark Twain

The Terrifying Brilliance of the Islamic Memeplex

Fab Yolis
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1417
Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2014 12:46 am

Re: 3 Laws Could Reduce Firearm Deaths By 90%

Post by Fab Yolis » Wed Sep 21, 2016 1:40 am

TJrandom wrote:When it comes time to amend it, it will not matter what the Founders thought, but rather what Americans think is needed today have been brainwashed into 'thinking' is needed by their deliberately dumbed-down education system.
FIFY

Handy hint: They're called RIGHTS because they are inherent and not conditional upon the vicissitudes of fickle public opinion!
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes."
- Mark Twain

The Terrifying Brilliance of the Islamic Memeplex

User avatar
TJrandom
Has No Life
Posts: 11996
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Custom Title: Salt of the earth
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.

Re: 3 Laws Could Reduce Firearm Deaths By 90%

Post by TJrandom » Wed Sep 21, 2016 6:17 am

Wrong. They are rights because men said they were, and wrote them into a basic law. Likewise, men in a democracy can rewrite the law – as now seems necessary.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19316
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: 3 Laws Could Reduce Firearm Deaths By 90%

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Wed Sep 21, 2016 6:48 am

Venerable Kwan Tam Woo wrote:Seriously?? The 2nd Amendment is about the right of self defence against would-be tyrants, .
maybe one response before you dig deeper into your stupid hole: The 2nd Amendment is about "a well regulated militia"...to be called upon for service BY THE GOVERNMENT.

Silly you are. arms = muskets and flintlock pistols, probably the attached bayonets...brain damages to think "arms" controls anything.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Fab Yolis
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1417
Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2014 12:46 am

Re: 3 Laws Could Reduce Firearm Deaths By 90%

Post by Fab Yolis » Thu Sep 22, 2016 12:51 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Venerable Kwan Tam Woo wrote:Seriously?? The 2nd Amendment is about the right of self defence against would-be tyrants, .
maybe one response before you dig deeper into your stupid hole: The 2nd Amendment is about "a well regulated militia"...to be called upon for service BY THE GOVERNMENT.
Go look up what the Founding Fathers actually said about the phrase "well regulated militia". It has NOTHING to do with being called up by the government for military service - "militia" means all the people, and "well regulated" mean that they have suitable tactical training and maintenance of arms.
Silly you are. arms = muskets and flintlock pistols, probably the attached bayonets...brain damages to think "arms" controls anything.
Arms simply means weaponry in the 2nd Amendment, and the broadness of the term is intended to counter any claims that the right only applies to antiques.
Last edited by Fab Yolis on Thu Sep 22, 2016 12:59 am, edited 1 time in total.
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes."
- Mark Twain

The Terrifying Brilliance of the Islamic Memeplex

Fab Yolis
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1417
Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2014 12:46 am

Re: 3 Laws Could Reduce Firearm Deaths By 90%

Post by Fab Yolis » Thu Sep 22, 2016 12:56 am

TJrandom wrote:Wrong. They are rights because men said they were, and wrote them into a basic law.
No, they are a rights because it is naturally right for people to behave in accordance with them.
Likewise, men in a democracy can rewrite the law – as now seems necessary.
Men in a democracy can only rewrite legislation, they can never alter the natural fundamental rights of individuals.
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes."
- Mark Twain

The Terrifying Brilliance of the Islamic Memeplex

User avatar
TJrandom
Has No Life
Posts: 11996
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Custom Title: Salt of the earth
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.

Re: 3 Laws Could Reduce Firearm Deaths By 90%

Post by TJrandom » Thu Sep 22, 2016 1:13 am

Venerable Kwan Tam Woo wrote: ... Men in a democracy can only rewrite legislation, they can never alter the natural fundamental rights of individuals.
Yes they can - and they frequently do so. Even your `natural fundamental right` to life - to breathe, to eat, to reproduce - can, and have been restricted from time to time. Witness the death penalty.

And gun nutters do it more frequently – by taking the lives of others.

User avatar
Paul Anthony
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2783
Joined: Sun Apr 23, 2006 9:23 pm
Custom Title: The other god
Location: The desert

Re: 3 Laws Could Reduce Firearm Deaths By 90%

Post by Paul Anthony » Thu Sep 22, 2016 3:42 am

Liberals love to rewrite laws.

They think the right to bear arms needs to change, even though it's in the Constitution, while insisting that everyone has a "right" to health care, even though it's not in the Constitution.
People who say ALWAYS and NEVER are usually wrong, part of the time.
Science answers questions, Philosophy questions answers.
Make sense, not war.

User avatar
TJrandom
Has No Life
Posts: 11996
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Custom Title: Salt of the earth
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.

Re: 3 Laws Could Reduce Firearm Deaths By 90%

Post by TJrandom » Thu Sep 22, 2016 5:14 am

Paul Anthony wrote:Liberals love to rewrite laws.

They think the right to bear arms needs to change, even though it's in the Constitution, while insisting that everyone has a "right" to health care, even though it's not in the Constitution.
That is because Liberals live in the PRESENT world, and want to address the needs that people have NOW.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19316
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: 3 Laws Could Reduce Firearm Deaths By 90%

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Sep 22, 2016 7:09 am

Venerable Kwan Tam Woo wrote:Men in a democracy can only rewrite legislation, they can never alter the natural fundamental rights of individuals.
We live in an existential universe where only MAN gives it meaning...by common agreement.

Proof: "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are born with the right to.........blah, blah, blah"--written and fought for by Slave Holders. The only natural law is that which men establish for themselves.

Just look.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19316
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: 3 Laws Could Reduce Firearm Deaths By 90%

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Sep 22, 2016 7:15 am

Paul Anthony wrote:Liberals love to rewrite laws.

They think the right to bear arms needs to change, even though it's in the Constitution, while insisting that everyone has a "right" to health care, even though it's not in the Constitution.
Correct. Without laws....we are a nation without law. Is that what you want??? or pick your magical preferred date when all law writing should have stopped.

"Even though its in the Constitution...." //// A document the founder knew would have to grow and change and be modified as the times demanded........HENCE THE MODIFICATION provisions. Nothing HOLY about your interpretation of what the constitution means. Just damn hard to change it within its own terms. But not only liberals.... the Supremes IN FACT change the constitution every time they rule on it. Just Look.

You have to be a total moron or a piss poor spin meister to think "everyone has a right to health care" is anything more than aspirational. They are arguing for a new right which obviously wouldn't have to be done if we "had" it.

Simple minded to think otherwise.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
OlegTheBatty
Has No Life
Posts: 11990
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 2:35 pm
Custom Title: Uppity Atheist

Re: 3 Laws Could Reduce Firearm Deaths By 90%

Post by OlegTheBatty » Thu Sep 22, 2016 8:41 pm

Venerable Kwan Tam Woo wrote:
Men in a democracy can only rewrite legislation, they can never alter the natural fundamental rights of individuals.
You can't possibly believe this.
. . . with the satisfied air of a man who thinks he has an idea of his own because he has commented on the idea of another . . . - Alexandre Dumas 'The Count of Monte Cristo"

There is no statement so absurd that it has not been uttered by some philosopher. - Cicero

.......................Doesn't matter how often I'm proved wrong.................... ~ bobbo the pragmatist

Fab Yolis
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1417
Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2014 12:46 am

Re: 3 Laws Could Reduce Firearm Deaths By 90%

Post by Fab Yolis » Thu Sep 22, 2016 11:49 pm

TJrandom wrote:
Venerable Kwan Tam Woo wrote: ... Men in a democracy can only rewrite legislation, they can never alter the natural fundamental rights of individuals.
Yes they can - and they frequently do so.
No they can't. They can and frequently do deny people their natural rights - which inevitably goes hand-in-hand with claiming rights for themselves that they don't truly possess - but they can never alter the natural rights of individuals by definition.
Even your `natural fundamental right` to life - to breathe, to eat, to reproduce - can, and have been restricted from time to time. Witness the death penalty.
You just said it yourself - these are artificial restrictions on people's inherent rights.
And gun nutters do it more frequently – by taking the lives of others.
I assume you're referring in particular to all the "gun nutters" in the police, armed forces, and Intelligence agencies, yes?
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes."
- Mark Twain

The Terrifying Brilliance of the Islamic Memeplex

Fab Yolis
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1417
Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2014 12:46 am

Re: 3 Laws Could Reduce Firearm Deaths By 90%

Post by Fab Yolis » Fri Sep 23, 2016 12:02 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Venerable Kwan Tam Woo wrote:Men in a democracy can only rewrite legislation, they can never alter the natural fundamental rights of individuals.
We live in an existential universe where only MAN gives it meaning...by common agreement.
What do you mean by "existential universe"? Do you mean that the universe exists (ya don't say!), or that we live in an existentialist universe? And do you even realise that existentialism doesn't actually undermine my argument?? I would say that we live in a universe of causality and consequences, and that people's natural rights are a logical outcome of these.
Proof: "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are born with the right to.........blah, blah, blah"--written and fought for by Slave Holders.


Ad hominem. Try again.
The only natural law is that which men establish for themselves. Just look.
If by "establish" you mean "invent", then you are plainly wrong. Humans did not "establish" the laws of physics, the laws of logic, the laws of mathematics, or the laws of causality.
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes."
- Mark Twain

The Terrifying Brilliance of the Islamic Memeplex

Fab Yolis
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1417
Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2014 12:46 am

Re: 3 Laws Could Reduce Firearm Deaths By 90%

Post by Fab Yolis » Fri Sep 23, 2016 12:04 am

OlegTheBatty wrote:
Venerable Kwan Tam Woo wrote:
Men in a democracy can only rewrite legislation, they can never alter the natural fundamental rights of individuals.
You can't possibly believe this.
I can't possibly believe otherwise.
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes."
- Mark Twain

The Terrifying Brilliance of the Islamic Memeplex

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19316
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: 3 Laws Could Reduce Firearm Deaths By 90%

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Fri Sep 23, 2016 12:06 am

Woo: what are the natural fundamental rights of individuals. If not too many, can you list them out for us.... I'd like to know.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?