Delaying tactics

[Kevin]

Here's one big benefit from sticking to a rights argument - the issue becomes people misusing the right, not the right itself.

When do we curtail free speech? When people misuse it. We don't curtail everyone's speech, just the manner in which it is used. So the issue becomes misuse of guns, not guns as such. Consequently, you avoid all issues relating to anything except criminal use. If you are not using your gun in a criminal manner, why should your right to bear arms be curtailed just because "you might"? We don't do that with any other right.

Lot more ground to stand on there, in my opinion.

[Truckman]

Here's one big benefit from sticking to a rights argument - the issue becomes people misusing the right, not the right itself...If you are not using your gun in a criminal manner, why should your right to bear arms be curtailed just because "you might"? We don't do that with any other right.

Fair enough since it's your thread...

It equates a convenience with something designed to inflict bodily damage.

But I still haven't seen your presentation of the thoughts present in the mind of the inventor of the firearm as he conceived the idea of the firearm...Or the inventors of the sharpened stick, or even the dagmar bumper guard...But I concede the fact that it's impossible to see into the mind of a long dead inventor even though you implied such...

I do believe many other Constitutionally guaranteed rights are curtailed by law and the various courts...The 1A comes to mind with the obvious examples of yelling fire, or giving added undesired testimony in court......Ben

[Kevin]

It doesn't matter what was in the mind of the inventor. That argument is like asking how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. No one is ever going to be convinced by that line of reasoning because even if he was trying to invent a fly swatter, guns being used in the here and now is what matters.

Also, plainly speaking, it is just silly. I'm sorry, but use that argument with anyone but a committed gun rights proponent and people will roll their eyes and walk away. It comes across as argument for the sake of argument, not a serious discussion.

[Kevin]

Yes, misuse of rights is indeed curtailed but only the actual misuse. You are not put in jail because you MIGHT misuse them. And only the person misusing the right is involved. Other people using their rights in a quiet manner are not enjoined. Quiet in the legal sense of the word, meaning not bothering others.

Keep it on a rights level and you force gun grabbers to explain why your gun, which never harmed anyone, is somehow a threat and needs somehow to be curtailed. We don't treat any other rights that way.

[Truckman]

It doesn't matter what was in the mind of the inventor.

Hmmm, and I thought it was you who brought up the notion...

It equates a convenience with something designed to inflict bodily damage.

So you're saying now that the firearm was not designed to inflict bodily damage?...I'm confused but then I get that way when I try to debate with someone as sharp as you...

You're just as sharp as that pointy stick that was also not designed to inflict bodily harm......Ben

[Kevin]

In bringing up that argument, I was reiterating a point made by gun opponents. When I say it doesn't matter, I am speaking for myself.

I don't think anyone beyond the debating circles is going to be convinced by an argument that relies on ignorance of true intention. The earliest known depictions of a gun shows it being used as a weapon, not a personal grooming device or a fly swatter. Consequently, the argument you are relying on is not historical. It is way too easy to present facts to refute the disingenuous "I don't know why the gun was invented" argument. That's why people roll their eyes when it is trotted out.

Second, as guns have been used as weapons for the last 800 years, no one is going to be convinced at this point that they are anything BUT primarily designed for inflicting damage on people. This is especially true when discussing the handgun, which is the main focus for gun opponents. Can these be used for other purposes? Sure. You can use a fly swatter as a comb but no one is going to be convinced that treating fly swatters like combs is anything but silly.

Apart from being easily refuted by 800 years of actual usage, the argument in the end is pointless, from my personal viewpoint. It doesn't matter to me what the true intention of the various inventors were. No one is suggesting that if they were being used today only as personal grooming devices that they would be a focus of legislation. They are in the spotlight because, whatever the intention of the inventors, they are being used today to kill people. Usage now is what counts with me.

Just to be clear, I agree with you on maybe 85% of your stance on guns, Ben, but this argument you are making is really to score rhetorical points. It is fencing and while I am willing to engage on that level, to see who wins and who loses, in the end, that will be all that we have done - see who wins a debate. Debates are fun and can sharpen minds but don't think that anyone outside the debate club actually takes this argument seriously.

[FredK]

I am sick of all of it.

I don't think the Founding Fathers envisioned career politicians who cared about nothing except themselves and the next election. If they had, they would have built term limits into the Constitution. That is something we need and will never get.

Also, bills should not be amended by attaching other bills. All bills should stand on their own. Of course, that will never happen, either.

Did I say I'm sick of this crap?

Time to look into Belize again. At least there I know I'm worthless when it comes to government hearing my wishes.

Me too Mike.

[Truckman]

You've gone far beyond my meager debating skills, Kevin...I concede to you your well earned victory, and will now fall on my sharpened stick unless I happen to see an approaching '52 Buick with dagmar bumper guards......Ben

[Mike]

Just for the hell of it, and clearly not part of this topic, but let's think about what the inventor of the gun was thinking.

First, I doubt he was sitting at a drafting table trying to imagine new ways to kill his enemy. Not even his mother-in-law.

I think it went something like this:

Lang Wong, or someone else with a good Chinese name, accidentally stumbled upon a crude form of gun powder. Maybe he was burning a pile of old manure on an old wood burning pile when he tossed in some sulfur and tried stirring it up with a stick. Something went "poof" and gunpowder is born.

Now that Lang Wong had witnessed this magic, he had to recreate it, so he tried and tried until he figured it out. Now that he knew the ingredients, he, or someone else, just had to refine the magic. Perhaps somewhere along the line they mixed the ingredients in a closed vessel of some sort and voila, the first explosion scared **** out of them.

Now that we know it can explode, what can we do to make it a bigger explosion? Experimentation taught them that and soon everyone was happily blowing **** up just for fun.

And it was fun until some military man came along and said "wait a minute!" we can use this against our enemies and slaughter them like sheep!". So, the genie is now out of the bottle and the military invented new and more lethal ways to utilize this magic powder. At some point, someone discovered ways to harness the explosion and use it to send projectiles in a particular direction. And thus the earliest crude gun was born.

[Dave Grubb]

Damn chicoms









I just thought I would say that in honor of Joe since he isn't around at the moment

[Kevin]

Jeepers, I wasn't trying to beat on you, Ben. I hope you know that. I see you as knowing more than I'll ever hope to know about guns and was wondering if you were up for a friendly wrasslin' match, that's all.

[Truckman]

Jeepers, I wasn't trying to beat on you, Ben. I hope you know that. I see you as knowing more than I'll ever hope to know about guns and was wondering if you were up for a friendly wrasslin' match, that's all.

Debating with you is like rasslin' with Earthquake McGoon (remember him?), Kevin...That step-over-toe-hold you had me in wore me out...

No, I don't get butthurt from words, especially yours because I know they're not written with malice aforethought...I just figured we'd both made our points and see each other's side...Now if you want to debate the finer points of HEB Diet Grape Soda against whatever you Yankee goobers call your favorite bellywash, then step up to the mark and take your best shot......Ben

[Kevin]

Kickapoo Joy Juice is my favorite, natcherly!

[Truckman]

Kickapoo Joy Juice is my favorite, natcherly!

Pish-posh...You might as well be drinking Coors as to swallow that Appalachian swill...One of the rites of passage when I arrived in West Germany back in the day, was to visit the Eifelhof for a shot of Ratzeputz...Today's version according to Wikipedia is watered down to only 58% alcohol...We real men downed the real thing at 90%, accepting no substitute...Then we stumbled into the john and tossed our cookies...

Of course if you're referring to the modern version, once called Nugrape, I'd give it a try assuming they have a sugar-free version for us poor unfortunates who are too sweet already......Ben

[Mike]

When I was growing up my mom's favorite was Grapette. I didn't much care for it, though.

Later, she switched to the king of soft drinks, Dr. Pepper!