Do you support the second amendment?

  • Thread starter Thread starter thephilosopher6
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Cath13:

.
This thread has kind of turned into “Commandos for Jesus”. I don’t think any further intelligent conversation is possible now.
Click to expand...
.
There has also been some name-calling, elitism, and bigotry here too disguised as sanctimonious virtue signaling.

Yet despite this, many fine Christian people are defending good, innocent, law-abiding people from having imposed upon them, “Collective Guilt” and an illicit stripping away of their rights.

We have seen the law-abiding poor people, particularly targeted for excessive harm by some people here too.

Many Christians have done a great job at countering pernicious Government nanny-state Socialist ideology here that looks to Government as their Messiah.

Government as messiah or “political messianism” is a particularly pestilent or “intrinsically perverse” view of Government as our Deliverer or Messiah (political messianism).

Thank goodness many Christians can recognize it and expose those ideas when they are attempting to be foisted upon (at least partially) an unsuspecting society.
CCC 675 Before Christ’s second coming the Church must pass through a final trial that will shake the faith of many believers. The persecution that accompanies her pilgrimage on earth will unveil the “mystery of iniquity” in the form of a religious deception offering men an apparent solution to their problems at the price of apostasy from the truth. The supreme religious deception is that of the Antichrist, a pseudo-messianism by which man glorifies himself in place of God and of his Messiah come in the flesh.
Click to expand...
CCC 676b . . . The Church has rejected even modified forms of this falsification of the kingdom to come under the name of millenarianism, especially the “intrinsically perverse” political form of a secular messianism.
Click to expand...
.

I DO think there is room for MORE intelligent conversation.
 
Last edited:
LeafbyNiggle:

.
So we agree there is no evidence that the “gun-free zone” designation affects determined shooters one way or the other
Click to expand...
.

.
Actually LeafbyNiggle, we see you attempting to take one sample, and try to universalize your thesis.

Not convincing.
 
Cathoholic said:
LeafbyNiggle:

.
So we agree there is no evidence that the “gun-free zone” designation affects determined shooters one way or the other
Click to expand...
I did not bring up that one sample. Others, including you, brought up the Texas Baptists church incident. Rhubarb seemed to cite it as an instance where an armed citizen saved the day. Others like Rhubarb are taking what they want to take from that incident and universalizing it. I am only countering those arguments. I don’t even have a thesis to universalize.
Click to expand...
 
Vonsalza:
“Just remember, boys; these attacks and their bodies counts are just the cost of freedom!”

Disgusting.
Click to expand...
This is merely virtue signaling. (Everybody see how good my view is).

Well that works both ways.

.
.

“Just remember, boys; these attacks and their bodies counts are just the cost of the nanny state!”

Disgusting.
Click to expand...
.
.
Woman Killed in DC Home Had Restraining Order Against Ex-Boyfriend
.
The mother killed in her Southeast D.C. home early Saturday had received an emergency protective order against her ex-boyfriend, who is accused in her murder, court documents show.
.
Stephanie Goodloe, 40, was shot in the bedroom of her home about 1:30 a.m. Saturday on the 700 block of Kentucky Avenue SE, near the Potomac Avenue Metro station, police said.
.
Someone heard gunshots and screaming and called 911, but by the time help arrived, Goodloe had died. . . .
Click to expand...
.


.
“Just remember, boys; these attacks and their bodies counts are just the cost of the keeping guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens!”

Disgusting.
Click to expand...
.
.
.
The New York Times . . . .
Justices Rule That Police do Not Have a Constitutional Duty To Protect Someone
.
By Linda Greenhouse June 28, 2005 New York Times
.
Washington, June 27 - The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the police did not have a Constitutional duty to protect a person from harm . . . .
Click to expand...
“Just remember, boys; these attacks and their bodies counts are just the cost of having no means to carry out defense from violent overwhelmingly strong intruders, independent of the state”

Disgusting.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
LeafbyNiggle:
I don’t even have a thesis to universalize.
Click to expand...
.
LeafbyNiggle’s thesis:
So we agree there is no evidence that the “gun-free zone” designation affects determined shooters one way or the other
Click to expand...
Then the counter to this point is . . . .

So we DO NOT agree there is no EVIDENCE that the “gun-free zone” designation affects determined shooters one way or the other. If we looked at a larger sample, this may or may not bear out.

We CAN say, in THIS CASE, the lack of a gun-free zone didn’t matter.

Why? Possibly because of the seething hate this atheist has exhibited against Christianity (he was bound and determined to persecute and kill Christians either way).

Hate exhibited at least with the preliminary information from the media although at this point, we don’t even know the extent of THAT for certain yet, we DO KNOW, this hate was significant.


 
Last edited:
Vonsalza:
Your choice to redirect . . .
Click to expand...
.
No re-direction Vonsalza.

I was pointing out just PART of the overall risk-benefit ratio that you were IGNORING so the readers can get a FULLER analysis.

Not a mere cherry-picked picture as you attempted to pass off here.

You also were virtue signaling (“disgusting”).

You also were appealing to emotion (well there is “emotion” on the correct side of the issue too. Not just on the wrong side.).

And the readers here have constantly been exposing your faulty logic and incomplete analysis on this issue.
You know what’s “disgusting”? (As long as you brought it up)

Selectively aiming to discriminate against the poor.

To selectively strip the rights of the poor further and further.

To take advantage of the financial misery of the poor for your viewpoint’s political gain, to leave them further defenseless so you can use their misfortune to manipulate the poor and capitalize and advance your political agenda in the wake of their misery.

THAT’S what’s “disgusting”.
 
Last edited:
Actually, that wasn’t the issue. The issue was your faulty analogy. Your intent to divert attention from the issue is telling.
You goal remains to prevent certain groups from exercising constitutionally protected rights, and it is in part based on a philosophy that rights are an eighteenth century paradigm that should be ignored
 
Last edited:
Cathoholic said:
Vonsalza:
Your choice to redirect . . .
Click to expand...
It was quintessential redirection. Textbook. Doubling-down doesn’t help; it’s clear for all to see.

You do, in fact, think that these atrocities are an acceptable cost for the right to access these weapons.

“The cost of freedom”, so to speak. And it is disgusting.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
JonNC said:
Actually, that wasn’t the issue. The issue was your faulty analogy.
Click to expand...
You still haven’t shown how it was a faulty analogy. Care to clearly demonstrate?
You goal remains to prevent certain groups from exercising constitutionally protected rights…
Click to expand...
Wrong again. You just NEED that to be my goal so it can fit your canned replies.

My goal is to make these deadly weapons less available. I’m open to anything that accomplishes that goal.
 
Vonsalza said:
You still haven’t shown how it was a faulty analogy. Care to clearly demonstrate?
Click to expand...
Your intent to deny individuals their constitutionally protected right is the same as those you want to take them. The methods and timing differ. The intent is the same.
Vonsalza said:
Wrong again. You just NEED that to be my goal so it can fit your canned replies.
Click to expand...
That is your goal. You’ve said so.
Vonsalza said:
My goal is to make these deadly weapons less available. I’m open to anything that accomplishes that goal.
Click to expand...
Less available to certain groups that do not meet your approval: the poor and the young adult
 
Vonsalza to Cathoholic:
You do, in fact, think that these atrocities are an acceptable cost for the right to access these weapons.
Click to expand...
Cathoholic to Vonsalza:
You do, in fact, think that other atrocities are an acceptable cost for denying the right to good, honest, law-abiding citizens (most especially the poor) their rights including these weapons.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
JonNC said:
40.png
Vonsalza:
You still haven’t shown how it was a faulty analogy. Care to clearly demonstrate?
Click to expand...
Your intent to deny individuals their constitutionally protected right is the same as those you want to take them. The methods and timing differ. The intent is the same.
Click to expand...
That’s not good enough Jon. If you want to claim it’s a bad analogy, then cite the parts and specifically explain where the conflict occurs…

Ends do not justify means, Jon. Claiming that two separate means are analogous on that specific basis is factually incorrect. Objectively so.
JonNC said:
40.png
Vonsalza:
Wrong again. You just NEED that to be my goal so it can fit your canned replies.
Click to expand...
That is your goal. You’ve said so.
Click to expand...
I demand a citation or an apology.

I recognize fully that a permit will affect poor folks more, as apropos more poor folks commit gun crime. But it affects everyone. There will be folks who make excellent livings that will decline to purchase a firearm because the permit fee makes it a poor value.

Again, citation or apology. NOT “generic rephrase” or apology; I want the post number that clearly states I want to take rights away from poor people.
JonNC said:
40.png
Vonsalza:
My goal is to make these deadly weapons less available. I’m open to anything that accomplishes that goal.
Click to expand...
Less available to certain groups that do not meet your approval: the poor and the young adult
Click to expand...
Less available to all.

If you have alternative suggestions that achieve the same result, seriously, I’m happy to have them.
 
Cathoholic said:
Vonsalza to Cathoholic:
You do, in fact, think that these atrocities are an acceptable cost for the right to access these weapons.
Click to expand...
I wish you’d preserve the name tags in your replies so that your opposition would know you’ve replied. Your chosen methodology of deliberately editing-out the tags can be seen as subversive or dishonest…

To your point; that’s called a “redirect”. When you’re utterly trapped in a rhetorical exchange - as you are here - a common tactic is to try and throw some heat back on your opponent using a different, maybe related topic. Again, this is a “redirect”, and it is what you’re doing. Formally, it’s a type of red herring.

In addressing your redirection, would you care to cite an example where I think “other atrocities” are acceptable costs to “denying the right to good, honest, law-abiding citizens”?

Specific citation, please. And if you don’t mind, leave the tags in this time?
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
I’ve never considered you my “opposition” Vonsalza.

But I do consider your IDEAS, worth opposing.
I wish you’d preserve the name tags in your replies so that your opposition would know you’ve replied. Your chosen methodology of deliberately editing-out the tags can be seen as subversive or dishonest…
Click to expand...
Then you and/or others will just have to low-ball me too and impugn my motives (“subversive or dishonest”) while I slowly adapt to the new CAF format (if I ever do).

You go right ahead and think that of me if you or others want Vonsalza.

I have thick enough skin where I’ll just have to accept some of that. I’m not “triggered” by it, I don’t need a “safe space” because of it, and I don’t even need any play dough due to mischaracterizations of me and/or my motives.
 
Last edited:
Cathoholic said:
I’ve never considered you my “opposition” Vonsalza.

But I do consider your IDEAS, worth opposing.
Click to expand...
Oh same. I readily separate the man and his idea. I’d still buy all of you a beer. And debate you some more while we drink them.
 
Cathoholic said:
I’m not “triggered” by it, I don’t need a “safe space” because of it…
Click to expand...
My flavor of democrat is older-school than that. We would probably agree that the only “safe space” a person is entitled to is their home and if one is easily “triggered”, then one needs to toughen their hide.
 
Vonsalza said:
I recognize fully that a permit will affect poor folks more, as apropos more poor folks commit gun crime. But it affects everyone. There will be folks who make excellent livings that will decline to purchase a firearm because the permit fee makes it a poor value.
Click to expand...
yes it affects both but not fairly.

the difference is one gets to choose to pay or not and the other, who does not have the funds, doesn’t really have a choice.
 
upant said:
40.png
Vonsalza:
I recognize fully that a permit will affect poor folks more, as apropos more poor folks commit gun crime. But it affects everyone. There will be folks who make excellent livings that will decline to purchase a firearm because the permit fee makes it a poor value.
Click to expand...
yes it affects both but not fairly.

the difference is one gets to choose to pay or not and the other, who does not have the funds, doesn’t really have a choice.
Click to expand...
That’s reality. The answer to “what is fair?” Is subjective.

What’s a more “fair” tax structure? One where every adult pays a flat $5K a year in taxes, or one where every adult pays 20%? Or one where poorer people pay 10% and wealthier people pay 40%? And so on…

You can argue “fair” any way.
This is the core issue around campaign finance. A billion dollar campaign has more “speech” than a million dollar campaign. Is this “fair”? Should campaigns have an equal amount of “speech” so people are less influenced by the loud-speaker effect?

What’s fair here?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top