Find fields & stores near you!
Find fields and stores
Zipcode
PbNation News
PbNation News
Community Focus
Community Focus

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 01-31-2013, 10:57 AM #1702
slateman
 
 
slateman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
slateman is a Supporting Member
slateman is a founding member
 has been a member for 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Treghc View Post
Intelligence =/= mental stability.
Exactly. Ted Kaczynski

Quote:
Originally Posted by Murph1329 View Post
you make the homeland security list...basically some politician gets to decide
lulz, no

NICS is run by DoJ
__________________
In your haste to save the world, take care you don't destroy it.
slateman is online now   Reply With Quote
Old Sponsored Links Remove Advertisement
Advertisement
Old 01-31-2013, 11:11 AM #1703
Iamamartianchurch
 
 
Iamamartianchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by StellarKnight View Post
LOL

Herein lies the problems inherent with a system of mental health checks. The medical community is torn over a **** ton of mental health issues, so how could we possibly expect a bureaucratic agency to be objective with such a moving target?
We can't. That's the problem. The best thing to do is let individuals care for their own personal safety. After all the supreme court recently ruled that it is not the duty of the police to save your life. This was in response to a law suit over a 45 minute response time by police officers. The family of the victim sued, blaming the poor response time on the death of their family member.
Iamamartianchurch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2013, 11:29 AM #1704
TheSilentAssassin
Words and Stuff
 
TheSilentAssassin's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by StellarKnight View Post
LOL

Herein lies the problems inherent with a system of mental health checks. The medical community is torn over a **** ton of mental health issues, so how could we possibly expect a bureaucratic agency to be objective with such a moving target?
There will surely be some people on the fence, but there are also plenty that aren't. Our inability to "hit the moving target" should not prevent us from hitting the rest of the targets that aren't moving.

Also, to be clear, those with mental health problems should be checked out and then addressed regardless of gun control. This isn't a function of making sure that crazy people don't get guns. This is for the betterment of those who cannot think properly for themselves. A small portion of that is protecting those that cannot think properly from hurting themselves or others by means of a firearm.
__________________
“There are only two kinds of people, those who accept dogmas and know it, and those who accept dogmas and don’t know it.” – G. K. Chesterton - The Mercy of Mr. Arnold Bennett, Fancies vs. Fads
TheSilentAssassin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2013, 11:37 AM #1705
Iamamartianchurch
 
 
Iamamartianchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
What's wrong with letting them hurt themselves? Tax payer down!

I really don't see your interest in preserving people who "can't think properly"
Iamamartianchurch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2013, 11:45 AM #1706
StellarKnight
Mind Erasure
 
StellarKnight's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Lost...In a Lost World
StellarKnight is a Supporting Member
StellarKnight is a founding member
 has been a member for 10 years
StellarKnight has achieved Level 1 in PbNation Pursuit
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSilentAssassin View Post
Also, to be clear, those with mental health problems should be checked out and then addressed regardless of gun control. This isn't a function of making sure that crazy people don't get guns. This is for the betterment of those who cannot think properly for themselves. A small portion of that is protecting those that cannot think properly from hurting themselves or others by means of a firearm.
Which is precisely why advocating for mental health requirements for gun purchasers is, at this time, missing the forest for the trees. If the threshold issue is the adequacy of mental health capabilities in this country, premising purchasing requirements upon the judgment of a deficient system is . . . dumb. The prudent course of action would be to get our mental health system functioning at a reasonable level, then using said system as a means of filtering out dangerous gun purchasers.

People seem to brush aside the inconvenient fact that the 2nd Amendment is in our Constitution, right up there with the 1st and 4th. Reasonable restraints on firearm possession aren't uncalled for, but they need to be reasonable. Few would stand for reactionary measures which infringed upon citizen's right to petition or freedom from unreasonable searches, so why are some quick to resort to reactionary measures on this constitutional right? One can't claim a single amendment is legitimate by virtue of being a part of our Constitution; it's an all or nothing deal.
__________________
Evil presupposes a moral decision, intention, and some forethought. A moron doesn't stop to think or reason. He acts on instinct, like a stable animal, convinced he's doing good, that he's always right, and sanctimoniously proud to go around ****ing up . . .What the world needs is more thoroughly evil people and fewer idiot ****heads.

Last edited by StellarKnight : 01-31-2013 at 11:50 AM.
StellarKnight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2013, 11:47 AM #1707
TheSilentAssassin
Words and Stuff
 
TheSilentAssassin's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iamamartianchurch View Post
What's wrong with letting them hurt themselves?
Sometimes I feel you just enjoy being obtuse and obscure. You really so no rational to why a person would want to prevent another from harm?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iamamartianchurch View Post
I really don't see your interest in preserving people who "can't think properly"
Simply because one cannot think properly now doesn't mean that they never can. Weren't you the one arguing for not aborting fetuses now because of what they will eventually become? If I could prevent the death of something that may become a functional, why wouldn't I?

Also, why must preservation be preserved for those things of quantifiable value?
__________________
“There are only two kinds of people, those who accept dogmas and know it, and those who accept dogmas and don’t know it.” – G. K. Chesterton - The Mercy of Mr. Arnold Bennett, Fancies vs. Fads
TheSilentAssassin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2013, 11:56 AM #1708
slateman
 
 
slateman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
slateman is a Supporting Member
slateman is a founding member
 has been a member for 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSilentAssassin View Post
There will surely be some people on the fence, but there are also plenty that aren't. Our inability to "hit the moving target" should not prevent us from hitting the rest of the targets that aren't moving.

Also, to be clear, those with mental health problems should be checked out and then addressed regardless of gun control. This isn't a function of making sure that crazy people don't get guns. This is for the betterment of those who cannot think properly for themselves. A small portion of that is protecting those that cannot think properly from hurting themselves or others by means of a firearm.
I don't think you understand the depth of the problems associated with mental health.

Most mental health care professionals can not agree on how to diagnosis or treat potential patients. There are some who believe it can be done through therapy. Others through medication. Others with a combination. And still others who believe that they need to be put in halfway homes or even assulyms.

You might get one doctor who claims that patient A is a danger to others, but another doctor examines patient A and determines he is no threat to anyone. Still another doctor will examine patient A and state that, untreated, he may pose a danger to himself or others, however with treatment X, he will be able to live productively and safely.

What do you do with that person? Do you deny him a firearm because one doctor said he might be a danger? Is he denied forever? Is he denied until a doctor prescribes him fit and healthy?

EDIT - Or what Stellar said
__________________
In your haste to save the world, take care you don't destroy it.
slateman is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2013, 11:59 AM #1709
TheSilentAssassin
Words and Stuff
 
TheSilentAssassin's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by StellarKnight View Post
Which is precisely why advocating for mental health requirements for gun purchasers is, at this time, missing the forest for the trees. If the threshold issue is the adequacy of mental health capabilities in this country, premising purchasing requirements upon the judgment of a deficient system is . . . dumb. The prudent course of action would be to get our mental health system functioning at a reasonable level, then using said system as a means of filtering out dangerous gun purchasers.
I like analogies. Let's say we own a busy public pool and this pool has a filter. Right now, the filter is working very good. It is having a hard time picking out certain types of smaller things (bacteria) but it still catches all the bigger stuff (hair). We have two options. You are arguing that we shut off the filter and let everyone swim in filth until it is fixed. I am arguing that instead we keep the filter on and let is just pick out the things we surely don't want, the big stuff, while we work to dial in on the little stuff.

If that wasn't clear, to put it simple, why shut down the system to fix it when instead we could simply have the system pull out the things we surely don't want until it's fixed?

Also, if I have very little hope that "get our mental health system functioning at a reasonable level" will ever happen.

Quote:
Originally Posted by StellarKnight View Post
People seem to brush aside the inconvenient fact that the 2nd Amendment is in our Constitution, right up there with the 1st and 4th. Reasonable restraints on firearm possession aren't uncalled for, but they need to be reasonable. Few would stand for reactionary measures which infringed upon citizen's right to petition or freedom from unreasonable searches, so why are some quick to resort to reactionary measures on this constitutional right?
We are hardly the nation we were in late 1700s. The priorities of the constitutional writers are of very little relevance to me.
__________________
“There are only two kinds of people, those who accept dogmas and know it, and those who accept dogmas and don’t know it.” – G. K. Chesterton - The Mercy of Mr. Arnold Bennett, Fancies vs. Fads
TheSilentAssassin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2013, 12:03 PM #1710
TheSilentAssassin
Words and Stuff
 
TheSilentAssassin's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by slateman View Post
I don't think you understand the depth of the problems associated with mental health.

Most mental health care professionals can not agree on how to diagnosis or treat potential patients. There are some who believe it can be done through therapy. Others through medication. Others with a combination. And still others who believe that they need to be put in halfway homes or even assulyms.

You might get one doctor who claims that patient A is a danger to others, but another doctor examines patient A and determines he is no threat to anyone. Still another doctor will examine patient A and state that, untreated, he may pose a danger to himself or others, however with treatment X, he will be able to live productively and safely.

What do you do with that person? Do you deny him a firearm because one doctor said he might be a danger? Is he denied forever? Is he denied until a doctor prescribes him fit and healthy?

EDIT - Or what Stellar said
May I ask what experience you have in the medical health field to be making these judgments? I believe Umami is our resident mental health expert, but I have a large amount of experience myself and I would argue that is far from valid. As I have said, I am not going to deny the "fine line" problem, but there is an entire abyss under that fine line which is indisputable. Some people may or may not be mentally unstable, but some just are. If you spend much time around this field, you are sure to see it.
__________________
“There are only two kinds of people, those who accept dogmas and know it, and those who accept dogmas and don’t know it.” – G. K. Chesterton - The Mercy of Mr. Arnold Bennett, Fancies vs. Fads
TheSilentAssassin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2013, 12:06 PM #1711
Iamamartianchurch
 
 
Iamamartianchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSilentAssassin View Post
Sometimes I feel you just enjoy being obtuse and obscure. You really so no rational to why a person would want to prevent another from harm?
I do enjoy being obtuse when it stabs into omni benevolent altruism. Rationally, no. Emotionally, yes but only those who are close enough to me, however that is certainly circumstantial. Like I think sepuku type situations are totally acceptable, on top of the typically argued suicide reasons.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSilentAssassin View Post
Simply because one cannot think properly now doesn't mean that they never can. Weren't you the one arguing for not aborting fetuses now because of what they will eventually become? If I could prevent the death of something that may become a functional, why wouldn't I?

Also, why must preservation be preserved for those things of quantifiable value?
I think you should give the fetus a chance to at least live long enough to prove some sort of worth as a human being.

We are talking about law though. If you want to preserve someone's life then by all means go help or get them to help. We have some capacity for self policing and social support. We don't need the state for it like at all.

To the last sentence:
Towards Die Superman. In my opinion. And that whole civilization as a ship analogy.

Last edited by Iamamartianchurch : 01-31-2013 at 12:10 PM.
Iamamartianchurch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2013, 12:07 PM #1712
Murph1329
 
 
Murph1329's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Hoover, AL
Liberals:
Pro abortion because the system cannot handle the dependents
Pro gun control because they kill people....that should have been aborted

why don't they just look at it like a late term abortion?
__________________
'98 STO
10/14'' Dye Stainless | AKALMP tornado valve
Evolution bolt | Evolution Roller Sear
ANS Jackhammer | Rex Kit
STO RAM | Air America Black Ice | Shocktech LPC
pic
Forum defeat is admitted when one resorts to grammatical insults -me
We all live with a mark of sin, no man's is greater than another's in his own mind. -me

Last edited by Murph1329 : 01-31-2013 at 12:15 PM.
Murph1329 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2013, 12:18 PM #1713
TheSilentAssassin
Words and Stuff
 
TheSilentAssassin's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iamamartianchurch View Post
Rationally, no. Emotionally, yes but only those who are close enough to me, however that is certainly circumstantial. Like I think sepuku type situations are totally acceptable, on top of the typically argued suicide reasons.
I don't see what sepuku (the act of a samuri killings itself either because it did something wrong or because it is going to get captured) has to do with a mentally unstable person killing themselves. To me, they are nothing in the same. But I have very little understanding of sepuku, so clarify what I am misunderstanding.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iamamartianchurch View Post
To the last sentence:
Towards Die Superman. In my opinion. And that whole civilization as a ship analogy.
I'm sorry, but I hardly have the patience to ask for clarity on every single post. I feel like I am constantly trying to just interpret you. I would appreciate it if you tried to post in a way that is not riddled in mystery and vague references. Say I am too stupid to understand; that's fine. Just try to post on a readable level.
__________________
“There are only two kinds of people, those who accept dogmas and know it, and those who accept dogmas and don’t know it.” – G. K. Chesterton - The Mercy of Mr. Arnold Bennett, Fancies vs. Fads
TheSilentAssassin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2013, 12:29 PM #1714
Iamamartianchurch
 
 
Iamamartianchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSilentAssassin View Post
I don't see what sepuku (the act of a samuri killings itself either because it did something wrong or because it is going to get captured) has to do with a mentally unstable person killing themselves. To me, they are nothing in the same. But I have very little understanding of sepuku, so clarify what I am misunderstanding.
Killing yourself to maintain your family's good name if you have done something horrible or dishonorable. It's an odd concept to most since family name means very little to most. I might have used the wrong term. Oh well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSilentAssassin View Post
I'm sorry, but I hardly have the patience to ask for clarity on every single post. I feel like I am constantly trying to just interpret you. I would appreciate it if you tried to post in a way that is not riddled in mystery and vague references. Say I am too stupid to understand; that's fine. Just try to post on a readable level.
I wouldn't call you stupid. I was hoping you'd abstract a little though.

1) you said you were going to revisit neetschay. I assumed you'd get what I meant when I said die superman. In an extreme case, Zarathustra is infinitely more valuable than your broken individual.

2) you asked why I should base preservation on quantitative value. The best answer is that a civilization thrives best when it is analogous to a ship. I'll let you fill in the blanks.

Honestly, speaking directly sucks. I find it limiting.

Last edited by Iamamartianchurch : 01-31-2013 at 12:31 PM.
Iamamartianchurch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2013, 12:36 PM #1715
TheSilentAssassin
Words and Stuff
 
TheSilentAssassin's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iamamartianchurch View Post
Killing yourself to maintain your family's good name if you have done something horrible or dishonorable. It's an odd concept to most since family name means very little to most. I might have used the wrong term. Oh well.
So, we should allow mentally unstable people to kill themselves or others to maintain their families name? In a culture where suicide is looked down upon and so killing one's self to maintain their family name would in fact hurt their family name?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iamamartianchurch View Post
I was hoping you'd abstract a little though.

I'll let you fill in the blanks.
I'm curious as to why you would want to write in such a way that I must abstract meaning and fill in blanks. Why write in a way that makes the reader guess as to your meaning? Why not simply present your own meaning clearly? It seems rather counter productive to have a idea you are trying to present but then run everyone who you are trying to present your idea through the ringer of guessing and lack of clarity.
__________________
“There are only two kinds of people, those who accept dogmas and know it, and those who accept dogmas and don’t know it.” – G. K. Chesterton - The Mercy of Mr. Arnold Bennett, Fancies vs. Fads
TheSilentAssassin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2013, 01:29 PM #1716
slateman
 
 
slateman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
slateman is a Supporting Member
slateman is a founding member
 has been a member for 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSilentAssassin View Post
May I ask what experience you have in the medical health field to be making these judgments? I believe Umami is our resident mental health expert, but I have a large amount of experience myself and I would argue that is far from valid. As I have said, I am not going to deny the "fine line" problem, but there is an entire abyss under that fine line which is indisputable. Some people may or may not be mentally unstable, but some just are. If you spend much time around this field, you are sure to see it.
I have a degree in psychology. I volunteer at a local clinic.

Mental health is far from exact.
__________________
In your haste to save the world, take care you don't destroy it.
slateman is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2013, 01:31 PM #1717
barrel roll
secedere
 
barrel roll's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: FL/GA border
barrel roll is one of the top 500 posters on PbNation
barrel roll is Legendary
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSilentAssassin View Post
May I ask what experience you have in the medical health field to be making these judgments? I believe Umami is our resident mental health expert,...
I thought he was our physicist?
__________________
--- UNDRPRVLGD Goggle Straps n stuff ---
If this be treason, make the most of it.-Patrick Henry
I'm a damn veteran, I've got more rights and privileges than you do.
MQ2 rebuild kits, MP4 ram rebuilds, general 'cocker teching
Will soon be making super slick mid/half block bolts
barrel roll is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2013, 01:32 PM #1718
StellarKnight
Mind Erasure
 
StellarKnight's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Lost...In a Lost World
StellarKnight is a Supporting Member
StellarKnight is a founding member
 has been a member for 10 years
StellarKnight has achieved Level 1 in PbNation Pursuit
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSilentAssassin View Post
I like analogies. Let's say we own a busy public pool and this pool has a filter. Right now, the filter is working very good. It is having a hard time picking out certain types of smaller things (bacteria) but it still catches all the bigger stuff (hair). We have two options. You are arguing that we shut off the filter and let everyone swim in filth until it is fixed. I am arguing that instead we keep the filter on and let is just pick out the things we surely don't want, the big stuff, while we work to dial in on the little stuff.

If that wasn't clear, to put it simple, why shut down the system to fix it when instead we could simply have the system pull out the things we surely don't want until it's fixed?

Also, if I have very little hope that "get our mental health system functioning at a reasonable level" will ever happen.
1. If you have very little hope that we can get our mental health system functioning at a reasonable level, then how can your analogy start off with "Right now, the filter is working very good"? If the filter in your analogy is a corollary for our mental health system, a filter that isn't currently operating at a reasonable level, nor could ever operate at a reasonable level, is in no way "working very good."

2. If the filter in your analogy is our current system of gun restrictions, then it makes even less sense.

3. I have no idea how you drew the conclusion that my position is we "shut down the system" because it somehow isn't catching everything.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSilentAssassin View Post
We are hardly the nation we were in late 1700s. The priorities of the constitutional writers are of very little relevance to me.
That may be so, but I'm not talking about the priorities of the drafters. The authority and integrity of the document itself cannot be maintained once you decide to uphold certain portions and disregard others. It's inherently contradictory to say that the freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures must be maintained because "it's constitutionally protected," then turn around and claim that 2nd Amendment should be disregarded because it's somehow antiquated in your mind.
__________________
Evil presupposes a moral decision, intention, and some forethought. A moron doesn't stop to think or reason. He acts on instinct, like a stable animal, convinced he's doing good, that he's always right, and sanctimoniously proud to go around ****ing up . . .What the world needs is more thoroughly evil people and fewer idiot ****heads.

Last edited by StellarKnight : 01-31-2013 at 01:46 PM.
StellarKnight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2013, 01:59 PM #1719
Iamamartianchurch
 
 
Iamamartianchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSilentAssassin View Post
So, we should allow mentally unstable people to kill themselves or others to maintain their families name? In a culture where suicide is looked down upon and so killing one's self to maintain their family name would in fact hurt their family name?
The hurting others part is separate. In that instance. The solution is as simple as letting the others choose how they wish to defend themselves. Ex. concealed/open carry. Open ownership within reasonable limits(no M1A1 tanks or Jesse Ventura with miniguns).

We live in a society of narcissism. It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSilentAssassin View Post
I'm curious as to why you would want to write in such a way that I must abstract meaning and fill in blanks. Why write in a way that makes the reader guess as to your meaning? Why not simply present your own meaning clearly? It seems rather counter productive to have a idea you are trying to present but then run everyone who you are trying to present your idea through the ringer of guessing and lack of clarity.
I'd rather give you a cue and let your mind run through the full breadth of the idea. I forget sometimes that this is a debate and not literature. Maybe letting you figure it out isn't a good idea.

Or I have no idea what Im trying to say and spit words and ideas out at random. I'll let you decide which is more accurate.

Last edited by Iamamartianchurch : 01-31-2013 at 02:05 PM.
Iamamartianchurch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2013, 02:04 PM #1720
Space Pope
 
 
Space Pope's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
They are not interested in understanding your argument completely or learning anything from your point of view. They would much rather you over-define it so that they can nitpick what you have to say and refute it with silly examples.
Space Pope is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2013, 03:10 PM #1721
chodeyg
sprezzatura
 
chodeyg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: via lactea
Quote:
Originally Posted by Treghc View Post
Intelligence =/= mental stability.
Seriously. At this point people are asking bull**** questions and saying **** that is unreasonable in an attempt to push their idea that no one is unfit to own a weapon, so I'm over trying to contribute.
__________________
Resurrect dead on planet Jupiter
chodeyg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2013, 03:23 PM #1722
TheSilentAssassin
Words and Stuff
 
TheSilentAssassin's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
I had a lot to respond to so I took the "knock out the easiest first" approach.

Quote:
Originally Posted by slateman View Post
I have a degree in psychology. I volunteer at a local clinic.

Mental health is far from exact.
Do you deny that while there is a debatable edge that there also is a easily defined realm of mental instability?

Quote:
Originally Posted by barrel roll View Post
I thought he was our physicist?
Sorry, Spracks? I get the two confused.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Space Pope View Post
They are not interested in understanding your argument completely or learning anything from your point of view. They would much rather you over-define it so that they can nitpick what you have to say and refute it with silly examples.
First of all, who is "they"?
Secondly, am I really getting criticized for seeking clarity? How is seeking clarity "not interested in understanding his argument completely or learning anything other than my point of view"? I am literally asking for him to be more clear so I can better understand.
Thirdly, if his argument is valid and displayed in a clear way (which I am requesting), then he need not be worried about "silly (counter)examples" because a valid argument would not have any. Unless, of course, my counterexamples aren't substantiated, then he could easily refute them as they are not valid.

Overall, what a stupid post...

Quote:
Originally Posted by StellarKnight View Post
1. If you have very little hope that we can get our mental health system functioning at a reasonable level, then how can your analogy start off with "Right now, the filter is working very good"? If the filter in your analogy is a corollary for our mental health system, a filter that isn't currently operating at a reasonable level, nor could ever operate at a reasonable level, is in no way "working very good."
I apologize. That was supposed to say "not working very good". I am a bit preoccupied right now. Re-read it as such and see what you think.

Quote:
Originally Posted by StellarKnight View Post
That may be so, but I'm not talking about the priorities of the drafters.
Your appeal to "the 2nd is right up there with the first and fourth" came off as an appeal to it's importance based on it's placement. Hence, why their priorities (what order) is irrelevant to me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by StellarKnight View Post
The authority and integrity of the document itself cannot be maintained once you decide to uphold certain portions and disregard others. It's inherently contradictory to say that the freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures must be maintained because "it's constitutionally protected," then turn around and claim that 2nd Amendment should be disregarded because it's somehow antiquated in your mind.
Who said I am in the game of upholding the authority and integrity of the constitution? The constitution was not intended to have the infallibility so often granted to it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iamamartianchurch View Post
The hurting others part is separate. In that instance. The solution is as simple as letting the others choose how they wish to defend themselves. Ex. concealed/open carry. Open ownership within reasonable limits(no M1A1 tanks or Jesse Ventura with miniguns).

We live in a society of narcissism. It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to it.
You can be as prepared as possible and still be victim to the aspect of surprise. I would be hesitant to toss those lives away as means of an end.

The last couple sentences about narcissism made me chuckle. I'll give you that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iamamartianchurch View Post
I'd rather give you a cue and let your mind run through the full breadth of the idea. I forget sometimes that this is a debate and not literature. Maybe letting you figure it out isn't a good idea.

Or I have no idea what Im trying to say and spit words and ideas out at random. I'll let you decide which is more accurate.
I have had enough discussions with you to say that I don't believe it to be the latter. It would just seem to be to be time better spent if we went straight into real discussions and avoided the nonsense.

But, none the less, your conversations have served me better than most around these parts, so who am I to complain.
__________________
“There are only two kinds of people, those who accept dogmas and know it, and those who accept dogmas and don’t know it.” – G. K. Chesterton - The Mercy of Mr. Arnold Bennett, Fancies vs. Fads
TheSilentAssassin is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
Forum Jump