I already did. The analogy was bad because you compared a natural death and an intentional killing (old man and abortion), to taking guns or preventing their purchase as if the intent is different. They aren’t. The intent is the same: prevent peyfr have guns
- Status
V
Vonsalza
Guest
So they’re the same in that different means leads to the same end?Vonsalza:
I already did. The analogy was bad because you compared a natural death and an intentional killing (old man and abortion), to taking guns or preventing their purchase as if the intent is different. They aren’t. The intent is the same: prevent peyfr have guns
I fail to see how my example is different in this way. The end is the same (death) as accomplished by different means (abortion or old age).
In the same way, you’re claiming that taking peoples guns is the same as my idea of reducing future purchases through permits because they both reduce the number of guns available.
The point is this: the end doesn’t inherently justify means. So your original objection on this basis is invalid. It’s like a combined fallacy of division and false equivalence…
Do you not see this? Or do I have to meet a different standard from you?
Last edited:
It comes down to intent. As I said, your intent is no different than Feinstein’s. You both oppose private ownership of firearms in the end. She wants to do it by force, you by attrition. But the intent is the same.
The fact that you are using attrition instead of force doesn’t change the intended outcome: fee and fewer people being allowed to access their rights.
But once you amend your analogy, it matches up pretty well.
Abortion is the overt intentional killing of a soon to be born human child. The "doctor " goes in and removed the dismembered body by force. Just like Feinstein wants to do with guns.
Under government healthcare, the expensive old man who no longer adds value to the society is simply allowed to die by attrition. Setting up barriers to young add getting firearms does the same.
On Sunday, a man with a long record of violence was able to buy firearms because the government failed to do its job. He proceeded to attack innocent church goers.
The man who stopped him is a private citizen who heard gunfire and ran outside in his bear feet, loading his AR-15. The man is an NRA member, an instructor, a good guy with a gun who stopped a bad who had guns only because the government didn’t go its job. He got his guns illegally.
This NRA member put himself at risk. He and another man put their lives at risk by chasing that monster in a car, knowing the risk.
That’s the cost of freedom, the price of liberty.
The deaths are not the cost of freedom, or even government failure or incompetence (both of which are true).
The deaths are the result of a vicious individual who shouldn’t have been on the streets in the first place.
We’re supposed to have a healthy distrust of government. That’s the reason we have a constitution that limits government power, protects individual rights, and declared that government subject to the states that formed it.
The fact is some government leaders do want to take our guns away, along with our due process rights, and presumption of innocence. People with power with those kinds of fascistic ideas should be feared, and worked against legally and with fervor.
I would never kneel for the national anthem in front of our flag, though I will defend their right to do so if their contract allows for it. That said, it is a self-defeating optic that is only hurting them. Further, their message is based on a false premise that Colin K bought into, that the shooting at Ferguson was racially motivated and unjust. Neither is true, and even the racist AG under President Obama couldn’t prove it otherwise.
So, your comparison is, not surprisingly, completely wrong.
Last edited:
C
Cathoholic
Guest
Cath13:
.
Really?
I haven’t gotten that from anyone here. At least from the Pro-Constitution posters.
For example, I love “our Government”.
That’s precisely WHY I want ideas disseminated that keeps the checks and balances system in place that our forefathers (in some cases) died to give us.
But if you ungratefully throw-away what our forefathers have bequeathed to us, you NO LONGER HAVE . . . “our government”.
And THAT is exactly what liberals in many cases want.
They want to pick and choose the Constitution away by Congressional fiat.
And ANY president, Congressman/Senator, Judge, or Citizen or foreign power that attempts to do away with that are usurpers.
Love of our Country and our Governmental system, is the whole point of Constitutional supporters ideas.
.
.
Really?
I haven’t gotten that from anyone here. At least from the Pro-Constitution posters.
For example, I love “our Government”.
That’s precisely WHY I want ideas disseminated that keeps the checks and balances system in place that our forefathers (in some cases) died to give us.
But if you ungratefully throw-away what our forefathers have bequeathed to us, you NO LONGER HAVE . . . “our government”.
And THAT is exactly what liberals in many cases want.
They want to pick and choose the Constitution away by Congressional fiat.
And ANY president, Congressman/Senator, Judge, or Citizen or foreign power that attempts to do away with that are usurpers.
Love of our Country and our Governmental system, is the whole point of Constitutional supporters ideas.
Last edited:
C
Cathoholic
Guest
JonNC in post 1866 (with minor format changes and parenthetical addition for context mine). . . .
JonNC.
That was a very insightful post. Thanks for your thoughtful analysis.
.
JonNC.
That was a very insightful post. Thanks for your thoughtful analysis.
Last edited:
="> Cath13, post:1891, topic:452415, full:true"]
She didn’t mean assault weapons. Those are automatics or selectable for automatic.
She meant semi-automatics, a significantly large body of firearms owned by millions of Americans.
It was the NRA, for example, that stood up for Otis MacDonald against the city of Chicago, led by progressives, who were fighting to prevent only the law abiding from getting firearms. It is always progressives and democrats trying to limit minority rights on this issue.
Injecting race into this, when you don’t even know me, is cowardly, and evidence that you lack any kind of intellect argument on the topic.
Perhaps you should read the 8th commandment
So, here’s the quote : “If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States, for an outright ban, picking up everyone of them (every gun) Mr. and Mrs. America, turn ‘em all in. I would have done it.”
She didn’t mean assault weapons. Those are automatics or selectable for automatic.
She meant semi-automatics, a significantly large body of firearms owned by millions of Americans.
How dare you? There has been no conversation, none on this thread about race or gender or any other group by those who are here defending the constitution. In fact, only one poster has made any suggestion about a particular group - the poor, and he’s anti-2nd wanting to limit their rights.
It was the NRA, for example, that stood up for Otis MacDonald against the city of Chicago, led by progressives, who were fighting to prevent only the law abiding from getting firearms. It is always progressives and democrats trying to limit minority rights on this issue.
Injecting race into this, when you don’t even know me, is cowardly, and evidence that you lack any kind of intellect argument on the topic.
Perhaps you should read the 8th commandment
Last edited:
C
Cathoholic
Guest
Senator Feinstein:
.
Cath13. You could be right.
Perhaps in all fairness, Senator Feinstein was only talking about what she terms: “assault weapons” (which has already been defined and re-defined by so many people, nobody really knows for sure any more what an “assault weapon” is.)
But you could be wrong too.
Feinstein was sufficiently opaque in her language, that a lot of eyebrows were raised. She had a chance to clarify this to Senator Cruz, but chose instead to lecture him.
The other thing I would like to know from Feinstein is . . .HOW she plans to be “picking up every one of them”?
How does she plan to obtain the firearms from law abiding citizens who would be manufactured as criminals by legislative fiat?
How does she plan on violating the Constitution with a mere 51 votes?
Congress shall make NO LAW infringing upon those citizens rights to keep and bear arms.
This clearly “infringes”.
.
.
Cath13. You could be right.
Perhaps in all fairness, Senator Feinstein was only talking about what she terms: “assault weapons” (which has already been defined and re-defined by so many people, nobody really knows for sure any more what an “assault weapon” is.)
But you could be wrong too.
Feinstein was sufficiently opaque in her language, that a lot of eyebrows were raised. She had a chance to clarify this to Senator Cruz, but chose instead to lecture him.
The other thing I would like to know from Feinstein is . . .HOW she plans to be “picking up every one of them”?
How does she plan to obtain the firearms from law abiding citizens who would be manufactured as criminals by legislative fiat?
How does she plan on violating the Constitution with a mere 51 votes?
Congress shall make NO LAW infringing upon those citizens rights to keep and bear arms.
This clearly “infringes”.
Last edited:
Recognize the fact that the man who saved lives Sunday was an NRA member.
Name me one mass shooter who was an NRA member. Just one
Last edited:
C
Cathoholic
Guest
From the California State Legislature (it COULD happen on a national level too) . . .
.
.
Some politicians pull this stunt, but creative judges have too.
So it’s incumbent upon good citizens to safeguard their rights . . . ALL OF THEM (including the Second Amendment).
This is part of the reason WHY Feinstein supporters “reassurances” are disingenuous.
And WHEN these types of things gets REDEFINED (like “high capacity magazine” has been REDEFINED several times), people like Senator Feinstein and people who carry her water in the press, are NOWHERE to be found supporting those same citizens that just had their rights and their belongings . . . REDEFINED.
And Second Amendment proponents have been betrayed enough times by politicians, where they are DONE trusting many of them (due to their duplicity).
So you have to size up Feinstein’s words . . . But if you IGNORE her actions (which speak louder than words), you will be allowing the good citizens to be vulnerable yet again.
Feinstein doesn’t care that the common law-abiding citizen in California has almost insurmountable obstacles to legally carrying their firearms.
Yet she has boasted about how SHE carries a gun.
This is yet another example of elitism. She puts herself over the citizens. And it’s wrong.
.
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160SB880
.
Some politicians pull this stunt, but creative judges have too.
So it’s incumbent upon good citizens to safeguard their rights . . . ALL OF THEM (including the Second Amendment).
This is part of the reason WHY Feinstein supporters “reassurances” are disingenuous.
And WHEN these types of things gets REDEFINED (like “high capacity magazine” has been REDEFINED several times), people like Senator Feinstein and people who carry her water in the press, are NOWHERE to be found supporting those same citizens that just had their rights and their belongings . . . REDEFINED.
And Second Amendment proponents have been betrayed enough times by politicians, where they are DONE trusting many of them (due to their duplicity).
So you have to size up Feinstein’s words . . . But if you IGNORE her actions (which speak louder than words), you will be allowing the good citizens to be vulnerable yet again.
Feinstein doesn’t care that the common law-abiding citizen in California has almost insurmountable obstacles to legally carrying their firearms.
Yet she has boasted about how SHE carries a gun.
This is yet another example of elitism. She puts herself over the citizens. And it’s wrong.
C
Cathoholic
Guest
Why don’t you just answer JonNC’s question Cath13?
C
Cathoholic
Guest
Just answer JonNC’s question Cath13.
L
LilyM
Guest
“shaved lives”? That brings up all sorts of mental images …
C
Cathoholic
Guest
Last edited:
The Scalise shooter was a Sanders supporter.
Does that mean Sanders approved? No. It means the shooter was a scumbag, not for supporting Sanders (that’s just being stupid), but for shooting people.
None of the shootings you mentioned are in any way, shape, manner, or form connected to the NRA.
I’ll ask again, name one shooter who was an NRA member. How many of the muderers in Chicago this year were NRA members?
Last edited:
Darned autocorrect.shaved lives”? That brings up all sorts of mental images …
Taking no other action. Let’s see:
We have federal law in this country that requires a background check, known as the NICS. We have federal laws that prohibit violent criminals and those with adjudicated mental issues from buying firearms. The Texas shooter was both ! So, how was he able to purchase guns? BECAUSE GOVERNMENT BUREAUCRATS FAILED TO PLACE HIS CONVICTION FOR BRUTALLY BEATING HIS WIFE AND BABY STEP CHILD IN THE NICS SYSTEM.
At every step, the fault for this happening sits at the feet of the government. Not Academy Sports, who sold him the rifles. They followed the law. Not the NRA. They support the laws. Not Donald Trump. He supports them, too.
The government failed to do its job to protect those people. Thank God an NRA member was around to stop the guy.
In the lobbying world, the NRA is small potatoes. It isn’t the amount of money they spend, it is the number of people they represent and the power they have as a voting block.Cathoholic:
The NRA gives millions of dollars to Republicans in Congress so that they “own them” when it comes to doing anything about these horrendous mass shootings which continue to escalate. Please think about that the next time you pay your NRA dues.
You seem to have no facts to back up any of your claims. You have come on here and spread lies about people, including me. It seems clear that I am not giving enough to the NRA.
- Status