Obama's offensive comment

tecoyah · Jan 5, 2013

Cicero said:
Despite your sarcasm, it's clear that what you are advocating is a violation of due process.

Okay..then as I stated...due process requires we decide (as a society) that something is bad, act to avoid it, and accept the law that does so...as a Society.

Helps us become a bit better...eventually.

I think we can agree that the slaughter of children en mass meets the criteria of "Bad".

Likely we can agree as well that a bad ass gun was involved.

Everything else beyond this issue involves a person....the obvious cause of this is the freakin' automatic weapon that was used to kill 20 children, and the nut job that used it.

One side accepts there was a nut job.

The other ignores the GoD Damn Gun.

David · Jan 5, 2013

tecoyah said:
Okay..then as I stated...due process requires we decide (as a society) that something is bad, act to avoid it, and accept the law that does so...as a Society.

Helps us become a bit better...eventually.

I think we can agree that the slaughter of children en mass meets the criteria of "Bad".

Likely we can agree as well that a bad ass gun was involved.

Everything else beyond this issue involves a person....the obvious cause of this is the freakin' automatic weapon that was used to kill 20 children, and the nut job that used it.

One side accepts there was a nut job.

The other ignores the GoD Damn Gun.

We don't ignore the gun, we just point out he could of killed just as many with a bomb. He used a weapon, you're too caught up on the type.

tecoyah · Jan 5, 2013

David said:
We don't ignore the gun, we just point out he could of killed just as many with a bomb. He used a weapon, you're too caught up on the type.

May I point out....bombs are already illegal, for much the same reason.

David · Jan 5, 2013

tecoyah said:
May I point out....bombs are already illegal, for much the same reason.

Not really... I could build a bomb right now, as long as I used legal materials, don't arm it and don't make a bomb threat, I'm good. Fireworks being the most obvious example but weaponized bombs work as well (knew of a chem teacher who taught his class how to build a bomb [minus the detonator] back in my HS years).

myp · Jan 5, 2013

Aww... this is back on topic and no longer about taxation.

Cicero · Jan 5, 2013

tecoyah said:
Okay..then as I stated...due process requires we decide (as a society) that something is bad, act to avoid it, and accept the law that does so...as a Society.

How is it due process to infringe the fundamental right to gun ownership of a person who has not broken the law, but merely has thoughts which are outside the norm? That is what it is to advocate gun prohibition for the so-called mentally ill.

Denying a person their rights because of something they might do is not acceptable.

tecoyah · Jan 5, 2013

David said:
Not really... I could build a bomb right now, as long as I used legal materials, don't arm it and don't make a bomb threat, I'm good. Fireworks being the most obvious example but weaponized bombs work as well (knew of a chem teacher who taught his class how to build a bomb [minus the detonator] back in my HS years).

I see now...so as long as I do not use my RPG, it is still a legal firearm.

Good to know....'cause when a plane with a couple hundred people goes down I was following the law until I downed it.

clax · Jan 5, 2013

tecoyah said:
I see now...so as long as I do not use my RPG, it is still a legal firearm.

Good to know....'cause when a plane with a couple hundred people goes down I was following the law until I downed it.

Exactly. An object is harmless. But used to commit assault, it isn't the fault of the object but of the assailant.

tecoyah · Jan 5, 2013

clax said:
Exactly. An object is harmless. But used to commit assault, it isn't the fault of the object but of the assailant.

Yet, I am unable to obtain the RPG without much effort, and so am unlikely to take out a plane full of innocent people.

Good to know....ain't it.

David · Jan 5, 2013

tecoyah said:
Yet, I am unable to obtain the RPG without much effort, and so am unlikely to take out a plane full of innocent people.

Good to know....ain't it.

Wrenches are legal, should they be outlawed because someone might loosen some bolts and bring down the seating at some HS football game? If you outlawed everything that could be used in a crime, nothing would be legal.

tecoyah · Jan 5, 2013

David said:
Wrenches are legal, should they be outlawed because someone might loosen some bolts and bring down the seating at some HS football game? If you outlawed everything that could be used in a crime, nothing would be legal.

Obviously, if I state a pretzel could be used to choke a chicken, you would defend flour and boiling water, and claim the bird asked for it.

Got it...everyone should be allowed whatever weapons they desire, and Iran should get nukes.

clax · Jan 5, 2013

tecoyah said:
Yet, I am unable to obtain the RPG without much effort, and so am unlikely to take out a plane full of innocent people.

Good to know....ain't it.

No, you have completely mused the point. It isn't because you lack a rocket launcher that you can't take a plane down, a box cutter was all it took to take a plane down before.

You lack the criminal intent, unless you are suggesting that having a rocket launcher would give you criminal intent. If that is the point you are making it seems very odd.

It takes a killer to kill. The weapon is secondary.

clax · Jan 5, 2013

tecoyah said:
Obviously, if I state a pretzel could be used to choke a chicken, you would defend flour and boiling water, and claim the bird asked for it.

Got it...everyone should be allowed whatever weapons they desire, and Iran should get nukes.

No it isn't an all or nothing debate. Those with murderous intent should be forbidden from having weapons, it is the lack of ability to know what is in a persons head is exactly the reason that those without murderous intent should be allowed to be equally armed as to defend themselves against such assault

tecoyah · Jan 5, 2013

clax said:
No it isn't an all or nothing debate. Those with murderous intent should be forbidden from having weapons, it is the lack of ability to know what is in a persons head is exactly the reason that those without murderous intent should be allowed to be equally armed as to defend themselves against such assault

Okay, so we need to figure out the minds of 400 mllion people..got it.

~OR~

We need to stop a few hundred thousand bad ass guns.

myp · Jan 5, 2013

I am going to split this thread between the gun posts and tax discussion. 2 good discussions happening- one thread doesn't do them justice.

tecoyah · Jan 5, 2013

good call....

myp · Jan 5, 2013

Wow, 91 of the posts in this thread were about that topic. Dedicated topic for taxation here: http://www.politicalfray.com/showthread.php?t=3644

clax · Jan 5, 2013

tecoyah said:
Okay, so we need to figure out the minds of 400 mllion people..got it.

~OR~

We need to stop a few hundred thousand bad ass guns.

Stop guns? Stop them from what? They are just lumps of steel or plastic.

the crime is the assault, not the possession. I think we should stop the assailant.

Owning a gun doesn't manifest criminal intent. Guns can't kill anybody thru are just things. Making them illegal only makes it harder for people who don't brake the law to have them.

I am not trying to be rude or anything, but the gun I carry on my hip is an "assault weapon" I have a fourteen round magazine. It hasn't ever once compelled me to kill anyone or jumped out of my holster and killed anybody. Again, I am not trying to be disrespectful here but its really strange to blame a weapon for the acts of an assailant.

Bottom line guns don't kill people, so why focus on the gun? Why take away the rights of Mr. law obeying citizen down the road? It doesn't stop criminals from committing crime. Most guns used in murder are illegally obtained. So making it more difficult to obtain them legally only makes out harder to obtain them legally. We really need to be focusing on the illegal obtaining of guns.

myp · Jan 5, 2013

clax said:
Stop guns? Stop them from what? They are just lumps of steel or plastic.

You keep repeating this argument ad nasuem. WE KNOW GUNS ARE NOT LIVING THINGS THAT KILL THINGS. But, they make it EASIER. Using your argument, would you support the legalization of grenades because they too don't literally do the killing- people still do that.

David · Jan 5, 2013

myp said:
You keep repeating this argument ad nasuem. WE KNOW GUNS ARE NOT LIVING THINGS THAT KILL THINGS. But, they make it EASIER. Using your argument, would you support the legalization of grenades because they too don't literally do the killing- people still do that.

That's the point, we do support that for those without criminal intent. You stop criminals by screening them out in the 1st place and locking up those you miss, limiting weapons wont change anything. Short of seizing every weapon (not just guns) and destroying them, you're not going to change the statistics with a ban.

Obama's offensive comment

Similar threads