• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Slaughter in vegas

DistrictDeacon said:
Screen gun owners, and let the acceptable ones own appropriate guns. Screen visitors, and allow the acceptable ones into the country for appropriate reasons/lengths of time.

Seems pretty consistent to me.
Click to expand...

Screening is not the same as banning outright with no recourse.
 
DistrictDeacon said:
No shit you illiterate mother fucker.
Click to expand...

You are one sad, hate-filled puppy.

You said his position was consistent. Screening is not the same as banning. You changed the goalposts.

Keep hating and being angry, they are very worthwhile things to do. Anyway, you've been doing it for so long that you would have to go to rehab to stop doing it.
 
Well, for one thing, most Muslims don't choose to be Muslims (I recognize there are converts, of course). In the case of, say, Syrian refugees, they didn't choose to be born Muslim in a crappy desert dictatorship that then descended into civil war. Every single gun owner is making a conscious choice to go out and acquire guns.

For another thing, a gun is a valuable physical item that can be transferred from person to person, lost, or stolen. The gun itself can be used to commit crimes, whether or not the original owner still has it. Society has an interest in establishing a registry of who has these dangerous items, just as we have a registry of who owns what car (another valuable object that can be used mainly for good but kills slightly less Americans than guns). A person convicted of certain crimes is supposed to be barred from possessing a gun, but we no way of knowing if that person buys a gun privately, or is given it by a relative. In many states, a person under a domestic violence restraining order is supposed to surrender their guns, but without a registry we have no way of enforcing compliance. A Muslim is not an object, nor is being Muslim transferable or subject to theft, nor is being a Muslim something that you have to give up after being convicted of a felony. I suppose the point of a Muslim registry is to identify people who are thought to be potentially violent; the point of a gun registry is to track the movement and use of an object, not a person.

I understand the perspective of gun owners who don't want to be on "government lists" and I could see how they might consider it to be a violation of their privacy. It is a legitimate concern. However, for good or ill, all of us are subject to various forms of surveillance, monitoring, licensing, etc. etc. to exercise all kinds of rights and privileges in a modern society. I am on a "government list" of lawyers and if I screw up at being a lawyer, I am subject to losing that privilege. Same goes for my license to drive. If you have a hunting license or fishing license, you're on a "government list" that also gives a pretty good indication of whether you have guns. For pete's sake, in most states you have to be on a list of qualified cosmetologists to braid hair for money. Society imposes these kinds of restrictions through a democratic process because we have determined that the infringement on privacy and convenience to individuals choosing to engage in these activities is outweighed by countervailing public policy needs. In my view, choosing to own an object which kills or injures over 100,000 Americans every year is an activity that should be regulated. Large majorities of Americans agree. Our political leadership is supposed to balance these competing concerns and make wise policies, but in this arena as in many others has failed miserably.
 
AsesinoDeTortugas said:
Both gun massacre terrorists and Islamist terrorists can be attributed to mental health issues.
Click to expand...

Or in the case of Islamic terrorists, maybe dietary according to Jim Jefferies. "You take beer and bacon away from me, and I'll fly a plane into a fucking building."
 
RJKarl said:
You are one sad, hate-filled puppy.

You said his position was consistent. Screening is not the same as banning. You changed the goalposts.

Keep hating and being angry, they are very worthwhile things to do. Anyway, you've been doing it for so long that you would have to go to rehab to stop doing it.
Click to expand...

He asked how someone could be for regulating guns and against a Muslim ban and still be consistent. I proposed one very simple way.
 
DistrictDeacon said:
He asked how someone could be for regulating guns and against a Muslim ban and still be consistent. I proposed one very simple way.
Click to expand...

It's dramatically changing the goalposts.

But even if one accepts changing the goalposts, your response was classless and uncalled for. But you won't admit that or try to remedy it.
 
Deacon923 said:
Well, for one thing, most Muslims don't choose to be Muslims (I recognize there are converts, of course). In the case of, say, Syrian refugees, they didn't choose to be born Muslim in a crappy desert dictatorship that then descended into civil war. Every single gun owner is making a conscious choice to go out and acquire guns.

For another thing, a gun is a valuable physical item that can be transferred from person to person, lost, or stolen. The gun itself can be used to commit crimes, whether or not the original owner still has it. Society has an interest in establishing a registry of who has these dangerous items, just as we have a registry of who owns what car (another valuable object that can be used mainly for good but kills slightly less Americans than guns). A person convicted of certain crimes is supposed to be barred from possessing a gun, but we no way of knowing if that person buys a gun privately, or is given it by a relative. In many states, a person under a domestic violence restraining order is supposed to surrender their guns, but without a registry we have no way of enforcing compliance. A Muslim is not an object, nor is being Muslim transferable or subject to theft, nor is being a Muslim something that you have to give up after being convicted of a felony. I suppose the point of a Muslim registry is to identify people who are thought to be potentially violent; the point of a gun registry is to track the movement and use of an object, not a person.

I understand the perspective of gun owners who don't want to be on "government lists" and I could see how they might consider it to be a violation of their privacy. It is a legitimate concern. However, for good or ill, all of us are subject to various forms of surveillance, monitoring, licensing, etc. etc. to exercise all kinds of rights and privileges in a modern society. I am on a "government list" of lawyers and if I screw up at being a lawyer, I am subject to losing that privilege. Same goes for my license to drive. If you have a hunting license or fishing license, you're on a "government list" that also gives a pretty good indication of whether you have guns. For pete's sake, in most states you have to be on a list of qualified cosmetologists to braid hair for money. Society imposes these kinds of restrictions through a democratic process because we have determined that the infringement on privacy and convenience to individuals choosing to engage in these activities is outweighed by countervailing public policy needs. In my view, choosing to own an object which kills or injures over 100,000 Americans every year is an activity that should be regulated. Large majorities of Americans agree. Our political leadership is supposed to balance these competing concerns and make wise policies, but in this arena as in many others has failed miserably.
Click to expand...

Thanks for responding to my actual questions.

Theoretically being Muslim is a choice, but in practice it's probably not. But, growing up in gun culture is kind of the same thing. Most gun lovers didn't adopt the hobby and love in their 30's, most had a dad who loved guns and took them shooting and hunting at age 8. Some people that grow up in that culture choose to leave it later in life, much they same way Muslims leave the faith. Others stay in the culture, embrace it, and spend their time and money practicing the hobby/faith and acquiring various bit paraphernalia that go with the culture.

The transferability aspect is interesting and definitely creates a distinction between gun regulations and "regulating" Islam. But Islam is a collection of ideas and ideas are transferable to other brains if you are persuasive enough. They can even be modified, like adding a bump stock to a Semi Auto rifle. Would we hold Imams and clerics responsibly if one of their followers radicalized and committed a terrorist act? Gun's being physical it is much easier to track the line of transfer and see the chain of posession. But frankly if a gun owner has her gun stolen and a year later it is used in a crime she is probably far less responsible for that crime than a passionate Imam spreading radical ideas.

If I had to be pinned down, I'd have to say it is the probability of threat that generates the inconsistency. I think guns are super dangerous and they are everywhere. Every single gun's purpose is to efficiently kill things at a distance. Muslims are not designed they same way or with the same unified purpose, i.e., not ever Muslim is dangerous (and they are also not everywhere in our society). So from a principles stand point you'd argue that you are regulating the guns and not gun owners, which is really the key point of your second paragraph.
 
Only extremists have brought up having a clearly unconstitutional registry of Muslims in the U.S. Contrast that to the writings of uber-conservative Justice Scalia, when he stated that regulating and creating laws regarding guns is completely consistent with the 2nd Amendment.

Of course, he did vote for and say the banning of guns would be unconstitutional. It would have been interesting to see if he read the 1st Amendment in the same way.
 
RJKarl said:
It's dramatically changing the goalposts.

But even if one accepts changing the goalposts, your response was classless and uncalled for. But you won't admit that or try to remedy it.
Click to expand...

I'll make a deal - you stop inserting yourself in everyone else's discussions and I'll stop pointing out your lack of reading comprehension.
 
DistrictDeacon said:
I'll make a deal - you stop inserting yourself in everyone else's discussions and I'll stop pointing out your lack of reading comprehension.
Click to expand...

Any discussion that is on the board is available to anyone. That's how it works.

There was no "reading comprehension" issue. you changed the entire premise. The word "ban" has a meaning. you decided to eliminate that word.

But thanks for proving my point. You azre incapable of admitting there's no place for your pointless hate and vulgarity. Even when it's as obvious as this time.
 
RJKarl said:
Any discussion that is on the board is available to anyone. That's how it works.

There was no "reading comprehension" issue. you changed the entire premise. The word "ban" has a meaning. you decided to eliminate that word.

But thanks for proving my point. You azre incapable of admitting there's no place for your pointless hate and vulgarity. Even when it's as obvious as this time.
Click to expand...

Birdman felt like his position of "ban certain types of guns, but don't ban Muslim" seemed inconsistent to him. I was showing him why it could be totally consistent.

But thanks for butting in, with your knee-jerk, zero shades of grey, hysteria, as usual.
 
birdman said:
Thanks for responding to my actual questions.

Theoretically being Muslim is a choice, but in practice it's probably not. But, growing up in gun culture is kind of the same thing. Most gun lovers didn't adopt the hobby and love in their 30's, most had a dad who loved guns and took them shooting and hunting at age 8. Some people that grow up in that culture choose to leave it later in life, much they same way Muslims leave the faith. Others stay in the culture, embrace it, and spend their time and money practicing the hobby/faith and acquiring various bit paraphernalia that go with the culture.

The transferability aspect is interesting and definitely creates a distinction between gun regulations and "regulating" Islam. But Islam is a collection of ideas and ideas are transferable to other brains if you are persuasive enough. They can even be modified, like adding a bump stock to a Semi Auto rifle. Would we hold Imams and clerics responsibly if one of their followers radicalized and committed a terrorist act? Gun's being physical it is much easier to track the line of transfer and see the chain of posession. But frankly if a gun owner has her gun stolen and a year later it is used in a crime she is probably far less responsible for that crime than a passionate Imam spreading radical ideas.

If I had to be pinned down, I'd have to say it is the probability of threat that generates the inconsistency. I think guns are super dangerous and they are everywhere. Every single gun's purpose is to efficiently kill things at a distance. Muslims are not designed they same way or with the same unified purpose, i.e., not ever Muslim is dangerous (and they are also not everywhere in our society). So from a principles stand point you'd argue that you are regulating the guns and not gun owners, which is really the key point of your second paragraph.
Click to expand...

People who grow up hunting etc. and respect guns are not nearly as much of a problem as people who DIDN'T grow up in "gun culture" or grew up in a house with dangerous and careless gun culture. Just like people who grow up in a peaceful Islamic family are not nearly as much of a problem as people who are converted and radicalized later in life.

Your summary of guns = object vs. Islam = religion/person is correct. Because guns are objects we can actually take some action to track the guns, require training in their use, put limits on where and when you can possess them, what kinds you can possess, etc. Plenty of other nations do this successfully. With Islam - or radical white-supremacy "Christians", or militant Hindus in India - it is impossible to put those kinds of limits on ideology. Ideology will spread and maybe even become more radical when it's discriminated against, marginalized, and so forth. Gun safety regulations are proven to be effective in reducing gun violence. Putting unpopular minorities on "lists" and otherwise discriminating against them has never been proven to make society safer from dangerous ideology.
 
Europeans are making fun of us. (Definitely watch. This is hilarious.)
 
The phone number put it over the top.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top