Subject:
|
Re: We love our guns!!-- was Re: Dan Rather is a Useful Idiot Extraordinare
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 28 Feb 2003 21:31:05 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
974 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes:
> > >
> > > > Refutation--the camera itself didn't cause the accident--the camera didn't
> > > > change the timing of the lights.
> > >
> > > Thanks for clearing that up.
> > >
> > > Your assertion in this case is that the cameras themselves are not causative?
> > >
> > > Rather they are merely tools and it's the people (governments in this case)
> > > that use them improperly which cause the problem? So why ban red light
> > > cameras, they're not the problem! Merely ban their improper use.
> > >
> > > Then you agree, presumably, that: "the gun didn't cause the crime--the gun
> > > didn't change the motive of the shooter", right? So why ban guns, they're
> > > not the problem! Merely ban their improper use.
> >
> > Oh if wishing made it so. I would love to see the day when we would enact
> > laws banning the improper usage of guns. Well, we do already and it's known
> > as 'the law'.
>
> Indeed. Now just enforce it. Enforce the laws against robbery, burglary,
> rape, assault, murder etc, and perhaps there will be less of a problem.
>
> But no, the police are apparently way too busy enforcing other laws like
> when shops can be open and what acts consenting adults can engage in in
> their own homes. Oh, and laws about whether councils can set redlight
> timings to 4 seconds or 7 seconds or not at all.
>
> Excuse me while I just roll on the floor laughing at you. You just don't get
> it, do you?
>
> You hereby can have the last word on this tangent, go ahead, make your
> followup post and be smug about it. I'm done. You'd rather just cover the
> same old blowhard tangential stuff instead of anything worthwhile.
>
> Whatever.
Thank you for allowing me the opportunity of "The Last Word"...
Friends,
We are gathered here today to pay our final respects to a cherished friend
that has been with us over these many years. This recently departed friend
of ours was dear to many of us, but in the recent years came under attack
from those who supposedly knew him the best.
Yes, Reason is dead. In his place stands ad hominem attacks from these very
individuals who say they adhere to critical thinking.
It's a sad day and I am left to wonder how Justice will prevail without
reason, without logic, without some scope of caring for our fellow person.
Oh, maybe I should address the issue... sorry 'bout the 'blowhard tangent'
(it was what you expected, so there you are...)
Quoteth Larry:
> But no, the police are apparently way too busy enforcing other laws like
> when shops can be open and what acts consenting adults can engage in in
> their own homes. Oh, and laws about whether councils can set redlight
> timings to 4 seconds or 7 seconds or not at all.
I never said we shouldn't fix the rest, but let's take this one point at a
time--When shops can be open? This is what you bring up? Talk about
grabbing something from out of left field. Yeah, the manpower of the police
force is severely taxed by this one.
Besides, are you saying that we can break laws that we don't find to our own
liking? If the law says you have to be closed on certain days, justly or
no, are you saying that we can blatantly disregard this law because we don't
*like it*? What kind of precedent does that set? "Well I don't like doing
only 100 kph--I wanna do 180! But I should be able to do it 'cause Larry
said I can disregard laws I don't like!" THen there would be no basis for
getting the guns out of the hands of criminals--"I know it's breaking the
law and such for me to have this sawed off shotgun o=under my truck seat,
but I like it, so I'll disregard that law that tells me I can't have it."
And you and I have always been on the same page when it comes to matters
between consenting adults--I have stated, here as well as everywhere else in
my life, that my Christian values are just that--*my* Christian values--I
would never prevent you from doing whatever you want with another conenting
adult. What I would like to see, however, is a waiver signed by you and the
others participating in whatever it is you want to do, saying that I won't
be financially or in any other way responsible to help you if things go bad.
That, pretty much, another pipe dream. As well, my crazy Christian ethics
would rear their ugly head and I would help you in your time of need, no
matter how you got there. C'est la vie. But police, imho, aren't too much
burdened by what's going on behind your closed doors. There may be laws
prohibiting your actions, but if "they" don't find out, how can you be
brought to justice? As for me and my house, we'll obey the laws in the
first place so we'll never have to answer that question.
What police do get bothered by, (as told to me by my recently retired law
enforcement officer cousin) are domestic disputes which start behind closed
doors, but end up in the street, when the neighbours get disturbed/involved,
and the like. Are the police not suppose to respond to these things? "We
should focus on catching criminals with guns--that man slugging his
wife--well, Larry says we shouldn't be bothered by that right now..."
And bringing back the red lights--If some safety committe came up with a
timing system for stop lights, and we start fiddling with that 'in order to
increase our revenue', but the result is more traffic accidents--well, death
by car or death by gun--I still see a death. So yes, I'd like to see some
sort of enforcement of not fiddling with traffic lights. But I also don't
think the cops would have too much worry about that--hefty fines and/or
losing the revenue due to your company's fiddling would send a quick message
to all involved not to do such things. And it's 100 percent verifiable and
enforcable--We can check the timers to see if they've been tampered with.
What happens to your gun when someone breaks in and steals it? Can you
assure me that it won't be used in any criminal activity? Of course you
can't--if a crrok took it, more than likely it'll be used in some sort of
law breaking activity. How do you, in your world, reduce the number of guns
in the hands of criminals?
Both you and I would love to see the police force focus on getting the guns
out of criminals hands--I know my way would help them by reducing the flow
of guns into their hands in the first place. Concrete, valid, logical
solution... smear me, laugh at me, matters not--it won't change the
truth--less guns = less gun related violence.
And there's your last word.
We now return you to better debates elsewhere.
Dave K
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
92 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
