Mass Murder by Blade, you Vast Idiots

[NoDrama]

Really? That is NOT the case for CCW, at least in my State. My Doctor friend is applying right now in Riverside County.

He had to have 3 letters of character references. He had an interview from a Deputy by phone, that went on for 1/2 an hour. He had to explain himself and his reasons in detail, but informally. Next he will go to a hearing, before the Sheriff, and a more formal, go over it again. In order to even being the process, the Deputy wanted details of the Range he goes to, his instructor, his proficiency sign offs. Number of weapon owned, rounds run each month, etc. They will interview his instructor, also.

So, if you don't like the CCW in your State, you can move to another.

But, to pretend you know what are the details of CCW all over the USA....excuse me, but I am not seeing that.

And you act like they give them away like coffee. Maybe in some States. But, even in most States, it is County by County.

My brother, outside Boston, is in a county where the Sheriff closed the gun range. He allows no firearm registration at all, much less CCW. And he gets re-elected time after time.

That is self rule.

Just get a Utah CCW, its good almost everywhere. No moving there required.

 

[NoDrama]

Cars technically don't need to be insured, locked, or registered.

You just can't use them on government roads.

IMO, this is where rules regarding CCW should change. If you want to drive on public roads, you need to prove your proficiency and pass to be granted a license. I think the same should be true of CCW holders.

Why would carrying a gun affect how you drive?

 

[kelly4]

IMO, this is where rules regarding CCW should change. If you want to drive on public roads, you need to prove your proficiency and pass to be granted a license. I think the same should be true of CCW holders.

In my state, anyone can carry a loaded gun in their car as long as it is visible. No CCW or training required.

 

[Beefbisquit]

Prohibition just creates a whole new way for criminals to make lots and lots of money. It doesn't actually harm them, it helps them.

No law will ever make it difficult for criminals to get firearms.

You are making an argument against stopping criminals from getting guns.

Are you retarded? You want criminals to get guns?

 

[Doer]

Not sure if you're talking about me personifying inanimate objects or not, but I can all but guarantee I haven't done that.

The thought process of gangs, is to make as much money, and gain as much control and territory as possible.

Why are you taking what I said about 'needing to apply a different through process' to cars and guns, because they're different things, with different uses and trying to make a statement about gangs with it?

You can either attempt to thwart firearm related criminal activities, or do nothing.

Gangs lose their power when they don't have a means to arm themselves, do they not? So, stopping them from obtaining illegal firearms would be a good place to start, wouldn't it? Well, besides trying to stop gang activity from happening in the first place, but that seems to be something people are even less interested in.

See in Philosophy there are no facts, are there?

And there is so much wrong with the way think....but you just see it as debate and winning "points to yourself."

Gangs lose their power when they don't have a means to arm themselves

Did you see Gangs of New York? Blade. How in the world do you think there is only power in guns. Power begins with commanding presence and commanding fists.

obtaining illegal firearms would be a good place to start, wouldn't it?

You have suggested nothing so far, that would not just flood the gangs with printed guns. And gangs had zip guns long before Sat Night Specials. In fact the imported cheap SNS revolvers, did so well because zip-guns are un-rifled, single shot. And that was back in the 50s.

The thought process of gangs, is to make as much money, and gain as much control and territory as possible.

That is backwards.Gangs first organize to protect their street from other stupids.

There is very little real history in philosophy either, is there? It is only dreams.

So, why not be honest with yourself? You believe that if you exaggerate long enough and ignore facts, you think you could turn the USA society from guns.

You believe the lies and deflections, sophistry and subject changing, are means that justify your end.

 

[Doer]

You are making an argument against stopping criminals from getting guns.

Are you retarded? You want criminals to get guns?

Your fanstasy End state does not justify the means to get there. It can't happen. It is simple. Your End State is not Constitutional. It was already thought through. No matter how smugly or slick you approach this, in the Real END STATE you have to ignore the facts about Saves and the Constitution.

You are forced to practice very ugly Mind Fuck.

The gangland has nothing to do with guns only violence. They can and do get guns from Brazil.
They will murder each other over Drug profits with fire and bombs. I would rather they had guns, than burning down blocks.

So, over the years, you created the Gun Nuts. That has pushed sales through the roof. And now more and more of us are awake to this ploy. The more guns you push into society as a reaction against you, the worse your case looks, more murder declines and less property crimes.

Self rule. Fuck Yeah!!

The backlash is very Constitutional and your side judged incorrectly and pridefully.

Most don't care until you make them care. Now we care.

 

[Ace Yonder]

So caught off guard you couldn't be brought to argue anything could you?

Arguing semantics? No one is arguing semantics, Why do you use words incorrectly all the time? Are you trying to appear smart? Because when you use words incorrectly it has the opposite effect.

Semantics is the part of linguistics concerned with MEANING, not spelling.

You should learn what words mean before you try to use them.

Now, let me ask you again, is driving a protected right enumerated in the US constitution?

You truly are stupid aren't you? You didn't know what the word meant so you googled it, couldn't fully grasp the concept, so you take, verbatim, the first line of a very complex definition and quote it like you knew it all along? Are you going to disregard the fact that I was not merely referring to your "correcting" of my spelling but to your entire post as a whole, and the implication behind the correction? Is semantics not involved in ascertaining the implication of a sentence, or involved in the formulation of rhetoric and propaganda (Which is exactly what you are spewing)? Was I supposed to be caught off guard by you trying to re frame the conversation with your constitutional rhetoric, which again is irrelevant to the conversation as I still was not talking to someone who lives in the US? This was never an argument over whether or not the 2nd amendment exists, but your assumption that it was, and your disagreement with me over what rights the 2nd amendment grants, IS semantics, as is your re framing of the conversation to include language you think you can use to sway people. Trust me, nothing a simplistic, primitive mind like yours can formulate will ever catch me off guard, and every time you try to match wits with me you will lose, because you sir are an inferior being. You lack the capacity to debate at this level, and it shows in every post you make.

 

[Ace Yonder]

Guns require bullets.

Is driving a car a right specifically protected in the US Constitution?

*License

Here's another example of how your post involves SEMANTICS, since I'm assuming you still don't see the connection. You say that bullets are the same thing in relation to guns that keys are in relation to cars. But you have misinterpreted the relationships, and this has led you to a fallacy of equivocation. Bullets are much more equivalent to gas, as gas enables a car to drive in the same way that bullets allow a gun to be shot. Anyone can add gas to a car in the same way that anyone can add bullets to a gun. Even if you say that bullets have to be the correct caliber, this is equivalent to a car needing unleaded, or diesel, or high octane. You cannot go to a store and buy, off the shelf, a key that will open and operate MY car, but I can go to a store and buy bullets that will work in YOUR gun, in the same way that either of us could buy gas of the correct variety that would operate any given car. Did you fail your SAT analogy section, or are you just too young to remember when that was a thing you had to learn?

 

[twostrokenut]

I wouldn't say glorifies.

Technically laws make the criminals. Murderers wouldn't be murderers if there wasn't a law against it, they'd just be people who kill other people as 'murder' wouldn't exist. I'm rather glad criminals aren't allowed to buy guns legally, it would only make it that much easier for them to re-offend, likewise I'm glad that murder is illegal.

Right...YOU wouldn't say glorifies because you're not a GANGSTER.
Criminals (like all of us here) aren't allowed yet we do...nothing can stop that right?
I mean did it stop us?

Murder is not a right...defense is though so I am afraid I can't see the line you drew there.

 

[twostrokenut]

Do cars not need keys to start where you live? Are you not required to register your vehicle, and obtain a licence to operate it? Do you think about the things you are going to say for more than ten seconds before typing them?

Technically you are correct for anything that was "registered".
The right to travel has been upheld by the supreme court.
The right to bear arms is self explanatory.
You cannot license a right, that is unlawful.
When we "submit" an "application" for "registration" the rules change a bit.

 

[twostrokenut]

Why would carrying a gun affect how you drive?

One hand at 3 o'clock and one on the trigger....not in the driving manual lol!

He don't know.
Travel is a constitutionally protected right.
"Driving" is mostly defined as a commercial activity by vehicles for hire....thus requiring a lie-sense.

 

[Doer]

Shouting many times.....oh that is helpful.

You can deny it. But, you said the slip slope can be to good.

So, since you said that, none of these big cap words mean anything.

It is exactly what you will get, even though you claim you don't want that.

So, you are a willing participate in the slip slope of the erosion of freedoms for Reason, but saying that it leads to good outcome.

We have shown chapter and verse of bad outcome, but you ignore that and shout.

 

[NoDrama]

a fallacy of equivocation

A fallacy of equivocation requires an unrelated ambiguous statement. None of that going on here.

Can you possibly make a single paragraph where you actually know what you are talking about? Do you try to use big words to impress people, but have no idea what they actually mean so you just throw them out there hoping everyone is as ignorant as yourself?

Just keep me laughing there little fella.

 

[Beefbisquit]

Shouting many times.....oh that is helpful.

You can deny it. But, you said the slip slope can be to good.

No I didn't. Saying doesn't make it true. The slippery slope was in reference to increased homicide via guns. How is that good? Are you changing the definition of words now?

So, since you said that, none of these big cap words mean anything.

I didn't say that. Fact. So, your point means less than nothing.

It is exactly what you will get, even though you claim you don't want that.

That's what you envision in your Rockodile Hunter brain, where rocks are deadlier than guns, and internet nobodies can out throw the most skilled, and dedicated athletes on the planet. Just because you can come up with an argument from absurdity against something doesn't mean it's a bad idea. It means you can daydream.

So, you are a willing participate in the slip slope of the erosion of freedoms for Reason, but saying that it leads to good outcome.

We have shown chapter and verse of bad outcome, but you ignore that and shout.

Erosion of freedoms? There are already more laws than can be counted, all of them erode freedoms. Sometimes, freedoms actually need to be eroded. Like freedom to rape and murder, or steal, or commit identity theft. You have been stripped, ruthlessly, by THE MAN, of your freedom to murder. How anti-freedom is that?

Rules aren't always bad, as you claim they are in your version of the slippery slope argument, where you get to play a game of special pleading.

EDIT: It'll take a long time most likely, but the USA will eventually adopt more practical gun laws. No idea what they'll be, but it will eventually happen.

 

[NoDrama]

You truly are stupid aren't you? You lack the capacity to debate at this level, and it shows in every post you make.

LOL

I lack the capacity to berate and ridicule? Is that what debate is?

LOL

Butt Hurt I keep making you look like a toddler, I get it.

 

[NoDrama]

What are you talking about?
Remember what happened back in the early 2000's when Tickle-me-elmo sold out? A fuck load of pissed off people with no Tickle-me-elmo's. The ones that were for re-sale, were so artificially inflated, 99% of people couldn't afford one. What would have happened if Matel didn't make any more, ever? Or even if they only made 1000/year?

Were there already 200 million tickle me elmo dolls on the market at the time that one came out?

No?

Well your story makes no sense then does it?

What dreamer believes he can magically eliminate all the existing firearms?

Come up with a realistic solution that doesn't blow up in your face and have negative secondary consequences that make things WORSE and maybe then I will listen.

 

[Doer]

That is what I mean.

You think it is a slip slop to good, to have the society disarm, in parts. Gangs, mental ill, etc. You said that.

But, it is not logical since it depends on the big flaw. The facts say, more gun = less murder.

You are assuming we buy into your diatribe that more guns = more murder. FALSE.

You ignore the protection, and the self defense. Yeah, you walk past Saves and say it is not relevant.

 

[Beefbisquit]

Here's another example of how your post involves SEMANTICS, since I'm assuming you still don't see the connection. You say that bullets are the same thing in relation to guns that keys are in relation to cars. But you have misinterpreted the relationships, and this has led you to a fallacy of equivocation. Bullets are much more equivalent to gas, as gas enables a car to drive in the same way that bullets allow a gun to be shot. Anyone can add gas to a car in the same way that anyone can add bullets to a gun. Even if you say that bullets have to be the correct caliber, this is equivalent to a car needing unleaded, or diesel, or high octane. You cannot go to a store and buy, off the shelf, a key that will open and operate MY car, but I can go to a store and buy bullets that will work in YOUR gun, in the same way that either of us could buy gas of the correct variety that would operate any given car. Did you fail your SAT analogy section, or are you just too young to remember when that was a thing you had to learn?

Excellent response.

 

[Beefbisquit]

Were there already 200 million tickle me elmo dolls on the market at the time that one came out?

No?

Well your story makes no sense then does it?

What dreamer believes he can magically eliminate all the existing firearms?

Come up with a realistic solution that doesn't blow up in your face and have negative secondary consequences that make things WORSE and maybe then I will listen.

Eliminate existing firearms? What in the living fuck are you talking about? Are you actually this stupid? I thought you were just trying to be funny, but you really don't understand what I'm say, do you?

 

[NoDrama]

You have been stripped, ruthlessly, by THE MAN, of your freedom to murder. How anti-freedom is that?

What are you talking about?

LAWS DO NOT ENCUMBER ACTION, ONLY THOUGHT.

Someone here thinks that if a law is made prohibiting some action, that that action will miraculously stop forevermore.