He doesn't like GUNS.

[JohnSmith2007 353]

There is no equivalency between weaponry and household objects. Weapons are weapons, knives are knives, hammers are hammers, cars are cars. This fallacious argument that anything can and is used to kill people is specious and designed to deflect away from the fact that weapons have a specific and unique purpose. If that was not true, why on earth would owning a weapon be something that you would want to protect constitutionally? You may as well protect the right to own a plastic bag constitutionally if all household items are equal. Therefore, I am tempted to place you in the nut category.

Then it sound like you have a personal problem to me then. I am not by any stretch of the imagination a gun nut. The object isn't the problem, the person holding it is. I guess we have nothing further to talk about.

[Peikko 1,575]

Then it sound like you have a personal problem to me then. I am not by any stretch of the imagination a gun nut. The object isn't the problem, the person holding it is. I guess we have nothing further to talk about.

I guess you've strayed into objectification as apposed to rational response. My conclusion stands. You are right though, we don't have anything to talk about if you can't separate objects into different categories, that is pretty basic.

[james&olya 1,121]

Alright, take two. My statement was to try and define my position so you could make up your mind if I am a nut or not. I didn't continue on with the rest of your post. To continue, while there may or may not be an equivalency between a gun and various other household objects it depends on how those objects are used. A gun can be a deadly weapon, no doubt. A car or a knife could also be a deadly weapon. In both cases it depends on how those various objects are used. A car parked in a garage is not a deadly weapon while one driven by a drunk is. A gun sitting on a table is not a deadly weapon while when it is when in the hands of someone intent on killing someone it is. The object isn't the problem, how it is used is the problem. Before you say that a gun is always a deadly weapon I would point out that when I owned a gun it was for sport. I never had any intention of killing with it unless you consider shooting a paper target to be killing. So in my case a gun was not a deadly weapon.

So if I would like to have a nuke or two, just for a conversation piece, mind you, then it is not a 'weapon' and I should be allowed this right? 'Gun-nuts' forget that rights are always relative and among the greatest and most basic of them are the rights to 'life and liberty'. These rights are endangered when highly lethal weaponry is in the hands of those not well-suited to handle it responsibly. A gun is much more easily used in a lethal manner than is a bucket of water, though both could kill. It is the balance of rights and the 'relative' risks to the population that matter. These things are not suited to black and white, absolutist kinds of logic. Nuance matters!

Edited March 31, 2011 by james&olya

[JohnSmith2007 353]

So if I would like to have a nuke or two, just for a conversation piece, mind you, then it is not a 'weapon' and I should be allowed this right? 'Gun-nuts' forget that rights are always relative and among the greatest and most basic of them are the rights to 'life and liberty'. These rights are endangered when highly lethal weaponry is in the hands of those not well-suited to handle it responsibly. A gun is much more easily used in a lethal manner than is a bucket of water, though both could kill. It is the balance of rights and the 'relative' risks to the population that matter. These things are not suited to black and white, absolutist kinds of logic. Nuance matters!

And hyperbole doesn't matter. A gun is an object. It can be used for purposes ranging from target practice to hunting to mass murder. It all depends on what the intent of the bearer is. A nuke has one purpose only, to kill thousands of people. They are not equivalent. Or are you saying that a gun has one use alone and that is to kill?

[JohnSmith2007 353]

I guess you've strayed into objectification as apposed to rational response. My conclusion stands. You are right though, we don't have anything to talk about if you can't separate objects into different categories, that is pretty basic.

And it seems you can't differentiate between legitimate uses for objects and illegitimate uses for an object. The intent of use is what puts various objects in different categories, not the object itself.

ETA: except of course for objects like James was talking about. Nukes are always dangerous.

Edited March 31, 2011 by JohnSmith2007

[Ban Hammer 13,429]

You might do better if you didn't try to set yourself up as a victim all the time.

oh i'm not a victim, but the residents of chicago sure are.

In my area it is popular for adolescent boys to play with 'air-soft' guns. These also look very much like this. Appearance is not the issue. Magazine size might be, anything that adds to the ability to rapidly kill or maim many 'targets' in a very short period of time is the issue, in my opinion.

exactly my point - judging a book by it's cover, judging a firearm by it's appearance. just because it looks "zomg military grade" doesn't mean it is.

while "banana clips" might be popular with some, i never cared for the 30 round ar magazines as it makes firing prone difficult.

What said taking life is fun? Well, I doubt anyone would actually say it in those words Charles, except perhaps Paul who rather fancies the idea of settling arguments with dueling but the way people talk about 'taking out' any criminal that comes within their line of fire (purely theoretically of course) there is always a certain relish that accompanies those statements that most definitely points to the fact that these people have absolutely no concept of what taking a life means, however flawed that life might appear to be in that split second of decision making. In point of fact, I personally believe that everyone who owns a gun and keeps it in the home for the purpose of self defense should undergo similar training to police gun training and have a similarly firm grasp on the law. However, that's me, you know a silly librul with silly librul ideas

so no one said it. thanks for admitting you're making false statements then.

your proposed ideas about gun training - what's to say some gun owners haven't done that?

[JohnSmith2007 353]

while "banana clips" might be popular with some, i never cared for the 30 round ar magazines as it makes firing prone difficult.

And expensive. The temptation to "rock and roll" when you have a large clip sometimes leads to an expensive 30 seconds on the range. I always preferred to take my time and get the best shot off I could.

[Ban Hammer 13,429]

Where in the second amendment does it define how one loses his 'right' to own guns or any 'arms'? It doesn't. What it does do is begin by referring to a "well regulated militia"!! The nature and scope of those regulations are not defined in the constitution. Do the mentally ill and severely retarded share this constitutional 'right' to own whatever guns they please? They have committed no crimes to warrant taking away any of their constitutional rights!

It IS the right of governmental bodies to define these regulations in whatever manner they see fit. All they need is the b@lls to actually take on the NRA nut-cases and do what the majority of the population have repeatedly indicated they favor in polls taken on this issue!

ref the bolded - ask the city of chicago, not me.

[Ban Hammer 13,429]

There is no equivalency between weaponry and household objects.

So if I would like to have a nuke or two, just for a conversation piece, mind you, then it is not a 'weapon' and I should be allowed this right? 'Gun-nuts' forget that rights are always relative and among the greatest and most basic of them are the rights to 'life and liberty'. These rights are endangered when highly lethal weaponry is in the hands of those not well-suited to handle it responsibly. A gun is much more easily used in a lethal manner than is a bucket of water, though both could kill. It is the balance of rights and the 'relative' risks to the population that matter. These things are not suited to black and white, absolutist kinds of logic. Nuance matters!

do you know anyone who can afford a nuke? no? so why bother bringing it up?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

[james&olya 1,121]

And hyperbole doesn't matter. A gun is an object. It can be used for purposes ranging from target practice to hunting to mass murder. It all depends on what the intent of the bearer is. A nuke has one purpose only, to kill thousands of people. They are not equivalent. Or are you saying that a gun has one use alone and that is to kill?

You are wrong! Nukes may have many other 'uses'. It has been proposed to consider their use to deflect so called 'killer' asteroids if they threaten earth. They have been used for research and for demonstration purposes. So yes, they fit very well into that same spectrum of weapons that a gun fits into, those objects being defined as those having a principal purpose of killing.

do you know anyone who can afford a nuke? no? so why bother bringing it up?

There are a number of billionaires world-wide that could easily afford them and at least a few of them known to want them!!!

[Ban Hammer 13,429]

There are a number of billionaires world-wide that could easily afford them and at least a few of them known to want them!!!

which means you have a list, right? who are they?

[james&olya 1,121]

which means you have a list, right? who are they?

No, I did not say I have a list. OBL is probably not a billionaire but he has had access to significant resources. It has been reported widely that he would like nukes. Libya's Khadaffi was trying to get them a few years ago. For all I know the Koch brothers might want them, they seem paranoid enough!

[The_Dude 1,142]

completely off topic here... just wanted to let you know in advance. i plan to quote this post the next time the 14th amendment is mentioned in an illegal immigration thread.

That is fine, I don't see how it would skew my point of view on illegal immigration, or anyone on this board for that matter. It is beyond comprehension how some on these boards suggest that anyone on VJ are in support of illegal immigration. Seriously, how can you make that assertion knowing full well that everyone here bears some level of animosity towards it because of their own experiences with LEGAL immigration? At best, you are being disingenuous.

You snipped off the first part...

yes i did. the first part is irrelevant to when i choose to use it.

its: bang bang shoot'em up. its my right & you don't have to like it. vs. my vag hurts. i want everything my way.

carry on

You might want to check the Terms of Service of VJ again Smoke. You're no newb, so you should know that it is agains the TOS to misquote or misconstrue what someone has said. I have no qualms with you quoting what I said, but at least be honest about it.

[Ban Hammer 13,429]

No, I did not say I have a list. OBL is probably not a billionaire but he has had access to significant resources. It has been reported widely that he would like nukes. Libya's Khadaffi was trying to get them a few years ago. For all I know the Koch brothers might want them, they seem paranoid enough!

obl is broke according to the last report i saw - he's been cut off from the family's money.

point that khadaffi can try to buy one all he wants, he won't get one. no one wants to attach their country to his ownership.

i suppose these billionaires could try to make one, but that would eat up their money.