A
Aquinas11
Guest
No, a negative claim holds burden of proof just like an affirmative claim
Both negative claims
- Status
L
LilyM
Guest
So what you’re kinda saying is that Americans lead the world in terms of being heartless and prone to violence - and consider themselves juatified in being so. So that’s a good reason to just give them whatever weapons they want and let them have at it?
I find the logic baffling.
Last edited:
T
TK421
Guest
It has no basis in reality. Knives are far less effective at killing people than guns are, and it is psychologically more difficult to physically stab a person with a knife and have their blood gush out than it is to shoot somebody from a distance with a sleek instrument. Put together, knives and guns are not at all equivocal. Knife attacks happen in America or Europe but they are almost always less catastrophic than an attack with a gun, and by an immense margin.
Humans are social creatures and they dont just randomly kill other people except in very extreme situations.
Humans are social creatures and they dont just randomly kill other people except in very extreme situations.
Last edited:
B
BlueMaxx
Guest
How on earth you came to that conclusion in my writing is beyond me.BlueMaxx:
So what you’re kinda saying is that Americans lead the world in terms of being heartless and prone to violence - and consider themselves juatified in being so. So that’s a good reason to just give them whatever weapons they want and let them have at it?
I find the logic baffling.
America is a beacon of Light…of freedom and generosity and self sacrifice along with our continual support of poorer nations (and even the not so poorer nations).
The issue is mans heart…and our subjection to original sin.
Our founding fathers were wise indeed, and knew what would happen if “we” the people were left vulnerable to unchecked governments and monarchies and dictators.
That is why our constitution is so unique…we do not need any more laws, just to enforce the ones we have.
I am a legal CCW carrier btw…and from where I sit it is the illegal possessors of firearms that are the issue.
Look at Chicago…it is a nightmare and has some of the most stringent gun laws in the USA.
Last edited:
E
edwest211
Guest
Research Chicago and how the guns got there. One person described crates of guns suddenly appearing and even kids carrying illegal guns. Just like drugs suddenly appearing in neighborhoods without any source being found.
B
BlueMaxx
Guest
We will have to agree to disagree…
As Mr. Young sang…
Shelter me from the powder and the finger
Cover me with the thought that pulled the trigger
Last edited:
P
PatK63
Guest
If we started publicly using the cane on offenders that would really help. We are doing no one a favor by not having a deterrent for bad behavior.
E
edwest211
Guest
But you’ll get sued. Teachers could discipline students at one time. Today, kids can walk all over their teachers knowing they are powerless to respond.
T
TK421
Guest
It is a way to make bystanders think of themselves as better than the people who are being beaten.
The criminals become embittered (and more careful/clever the next time they commit a crime) and the public becomes sterner.
The criminals become embittered (and more careful/clever the next time they commit a crime) and the public becomes sterner.
Last edited:
T
TK421
Guest
Except corporal punishment had more to do with the lack of discipline and emotionally maturity from the parent/teacher than it did to do with “disciplining” the child.
Last edited:
E
edwest211
Guest
That’s not true. The child in school does something wrong and gets some punishment. I was sent to the principal, got a few whacks and was told to stand in the corner. I saw a nun hit the back of a student’s hand with a ruler. Kids haven’t changed, we do stupid things.
T
TK421
Guest
No need to single out “kids”.
When an employee does something stupid, they dont get spanked.
Last edited:
E
edwest211
Guest
Being kids and getting away with it makes for adults who think they can do stupid things.
T
TK421
Guest
Which is why they shouldn’t get away with it.
E
edwest211
Guest
If kids learn that when they are kids, they might be less inclined to do stupid things as adults.
O
otjm
Guest
People who own guns are not necessarily “gun lovers”. Both of my brothers have the carrying concealed permit.
One of them once, in the downtown area was with his wife when they were approached by two individuals who came at them like zoning in on a target. My brother simply reached back for his weapon and the two individuals turned and moved away rapidly. My brother never drew; but both guys approaching him knew what he was reaching for.
Neither of my brothers would qualify as “gun lovers”; one owns one pistol; the other owns a shotgun and a rifle (both used for hunting) and he and his wife each own a pistol (she also has her CCW).
In the category of “gun lovers” I would put collectors. Neither of my brothers nor I collect guns; we buy them for specific uses and use them.
As to "gun lovers, I can assure you that the vast majority of legal gun owners would be delighted to see gun violence go down. If nothing else (and this is certainlyl not the sole reason for wanting violence to decrease), they are aware that it would work to quell the extremely poorly thought out law proposals which do nothing to reduce gang violence or suicide, but simply work to take away guns legally owned by non-criminals or make it somewhere between difficult and impossible to own a weapon.
Chicago is a prime example of this: they have some of the most restrictive gun laws on the books, and have one of the highest rates of shooting. As has been publicly noted, Chicago also has a long history of ignoring federal gun laws in their prosecution of criminals with guns. One of the recent gun cases to go to the Supreme Court was by an innocent civilian who could not purcahse a pistol in order to protect himself; but a large number of gang members have one - which they did not purchase through a gun dealer, as they never would have passed the background check.
That is a good definition of the word “oxymoron”.
One of them once, in the downtown area was with his wife when they were approached by two individuals who came at them like zoning in on a target. My brother simply reached back for his weapon and the two individuals turned and moved away rapidly. My brother never drew; but both guys approaching him knew what he was reaching for.
Neither of my brothers would qualify as “gun lovers”; one owns one pistol; the other owns a shotgun and a rifle (both used for hunting) and he and his wife each own a pistol (she also has her CCW).
In the category of “gun lovers” I would put collectors. Neither of my brothers nor I collect guns; we buy them for specific uses and use them.
As to "gun lovers, I can assure you that the vast majority of legal gun owners would be delighted to see gun violence go down. If nothing else (and this is certainlyl not the sole reason for wanting violence to decrease), they are aware that it would work to quell the extremely poorly thought out law proposals which do nothing to reduce gang violence or suicide, but simply work to take away guns legally owned by non-criminals or make it somewhere between difficult and impossible to own a weapon.
Chicago is a prime example of this: they have some of the most restrictive gun laws on the books, and have one of the highest rates of shooting. As has been publicly noted, Chicago also has a long history of ignoring federal gun laws in their prosecution of criminals with guns. One of the recent gun cases to go to the Supreme Court was by an innocent civilian who could not purcahse a pistol in order to protect himself; but a large number of gang members have one - which they did not purchase through a gun dealer, as they never would have passed the background check.
That is a good definition of the word “oxymoron”.
O
otjm
Guest
The Second amendment does give the right to h=own guns; and real estate is not “confiscated”; it is bought by the government through the process of eminent domain. They are required to compensate the property owner, and the process is through appraisal of the value of the property.
My parish just went through that as the school next door need property, and the parish owned a large lot between the two. The price was finally set through appraisal, at fair market value.
One may not like the fact that property may be acquired by the governmental jurisdiction, but it is not confiscated within the meaning of that word.
My parish just went through that as the school next door need property, and the parish owned a large lot between the two. The price was finally set through appraisal, at fair market value.
One may not like the fact that property may be acquired by the governmental jurisdiction, but it is not confiscated within the meaning of that word.
Emeraldlady
New member
TK is exactly right. No other country in the world regards owning guns as a divine right. Even the English constitution on which the American is based called the right an ‘auxiliary’ right to the human right of resistance and self preservation.
5. The fifth and last auxiliary right of the subject, that I shall at present mention, is that of having arms for their defence, suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law. Which is also declared by the same statute I W. & M. st. 2. c. 2. and is indeed a public allowance, under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression.
Auxiliary means serving the higher right. Those sort of rights are conditional and definitely illegitimate if they actually cause more harm than good to the higher right.
Last edited:
O
otjm
Guest
Sadly you are mistaken. The “divine right” is the right to self-protection as well as the just war theory.
From the Catechism of the Catholic Church: Paragraph 2264: "love towards oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one’s own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow: (and a quote from St. Thomas Aquinas). 2265: Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty foe someone responsible for another’s life, the common good of the family or of the state.
It is an oxymoron that you have a divine right to protect your life or that of the family or state, but no right to the means to do so.
From the Catechism of the Catholic Church: Paragraph 2264: "love towards oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one’s own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow: (and a quote from St. Thomas Aquinas). 2265: Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty foe someone responsible for another’s life, the common good of the family or of the state.
It is an oxymoron that you have a divine right to protect your life or that of the family or state, but no right to the means to do so.
Last edited:
P
PatK63
Guest
You need to be smart about it. You catch these first offenders and make an impression on them. Where was it that the American teen spray painted a bunch of cars and they were going to cane him. It made quite an impression and definitely deterred others.
- Status