Say, Numinus, did you ever figure out whether your position is that guns are meant to kill whatever, or meant to kill people specifically? You never did address my question above.
-
Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum
Who Shouldnt Have Guns?
- Thread starter Bunz
- Start date
Werbung:
No.
The situation with bunz is that he made it appear that he needs guns for his and his family's survival -- an argument your 'good manners' found it necessary to interrupt.
That situation describes the alaskan bush communities. The fact that bunz has internet connection suggests to any reasonable individual that bunz DOES NOT LIVE IN ALASKAN BUSH COMMUNITIES.
And your continued insistence on this point of argument suggests to any reasonable individual that you are an intellectually dishonest person.
How about logic, hmmm? Do you think that a justification based on logic, especially in light of the problems caused by the proliferation of firearms, is not necessary, hmmm?
Just the thing I would expect from senile fools -- no justification is required because it is written somewhere. One cannot fault this, I suppose, since the rational faculties of a person of so advanced an age is highly suspect.
The constitution in my country recognizes the inalienable rights listed in your constitution, except the patently superfluous rights such as the right to bear firearms.
We have a presidential form of representative democracy, three co-equal branches of government, two houses of congress, and a supreme court over a host of lower courts. Our legal system operate in much the same way as yours -- that is -- legal precedents both in international law and american jurisprudence, in addition to our jurisprudence are used in legal arguments and issues.
We have no capital punishment and we outlaw abortions.
Criticize away -- if you have the reasoning stamina for it.
It is meant to destroy (non-living things) and kill (living things). Its use does not discriminate.
I have answered this ages ago.
Sigh.
More fools errand?
I can stipulate that no death has been caused by this kind of rifle and it would not diminish the facts already presented.
It is entirely consistent. The purpose of killing a human being is precluded once rubber bullets are used, or, at the very least, the intent becomes clear.
Duh?
Hi there folks, I have left this thread awhile ago. But find it interesting it is continuing. Either way, when I looked at an update I find this post quite funny! 
Alaska, even in the urban areas has considerable interaction with wildlife. Wildlife that has proven to be deadly with humans. This includes bears, of all species, black, brown and polar. Moose and caribou are known to be quite protective of thier young, including quite a few severe injuries and at least one death since 1990 in Anchorage alone.
In my own town, it would be unwise to spend any time in the woods without at least a .45 caliber pistol. People go in with less, but they are gambling thier lives.
Well actually Numinus, yes I do. The village I live in is located in the Bristol Bay region of Alaska. On the western coast and 300 air miles from the nearest stoplight. You apparently missed my updates, and often complaints about my very slow internet connection due to my remoteness. It is amazing though what sattelite technology has provided the most remote areas of Alaska with connection to the outside world. We didnt get live TV coverage until 1991. It was only in 2003 that we actually had internet connection that was available commercially.
Alaska, even in the urban areas has considerable interaction with wildlife. Wildlife that has proven to be deadly with humans. This includes bears, of all species, black, brown and polar. Moose and caribou are known to be quite protective of thier young, including quite a few severe injuries and at least one death since 1990 in Anchorage alone.
In my own town, it would be unwise to spend any time in the woods without at least a .45 caliber pistol. People go in with less, but they are gambling thier lives.
The "proliferation" of firearms causes no problems in your country.
It is not "written somewhere", it is so stated in the Constitution...a limit on government power. Oh, and yes, I am guilty of "advanced age."
The "Constitution" presented by the Soviet Union to placate the American allies during the Second World War also was full of "rights" of the citizens, but it was just a hollow document that was not meant to actually be followed. Prove that your country actually observes the rights listed in its constitution. What third world country are your from? Why are you afraid to say it? Peoples Republic of China?
No, actually, you ignored my having pointed out your inconsistency.
http://news.aol.com/story/_a/7-die-in-tokyo-stabbing-rampage/20080608063309990001
This was caused the "proliferation" of knives in Japan. Note that the stabber had a higher kill number than has been attributed to many attacks by persons in the U.S. with the dreaded "high capacity" magazines that "just spray bullets everywhere."
This was caused the "proliferation" of knives in Japan. Note that the stabber had a higher kill number than has been attributed to many attacks by persons in the U.S. with the dreaded "high capacity" magazines that "just spray bullets everywhere."
From the posts by Numinus, it is obvious that he considers himself an intellectual. However, it is obvious that he side steps questions and attempts to change the focus of the question when confronted with a specific examples (For example:Bunz using guns for food in remote area shifted to: does not justify rest of guns in U.S.) ...just like a child does when caught in a lie. It is also abundantly clear that although he has an education, he is not an intellectual (as he likes to see himself, and wishes others would see him), but an educated fool.
Hi there folks, I have left this thread awhile ago. But find it interesting it is continuing. Either way, when I looked at an update I find this post quite funny!
Well actually Numinus, yes I do. The village I live in is located in the Bristol Bay region of Alaska. On the western coast and 300 air miles from the nearest stoplight. You apparently missed my updates, and often complaints about my very slow internet connection due to my remoteness. It is amazing though what sattelite technology has provided the most remote areas of Alaska with connection to the outside world. We didnt get live TV coverage until 1991. It was only in 2003 that we actually had internet connection that was available commercially.
Alaska, even in the urban areas has considerable interaction with wildlife. Wildlife that has proven to be deadly with humans. This includes bears, of all species, black, brown and polar. Moose and caribou are known to be quite protective of thier young, including quite a few severe injuries and at least one death since 1990 in Anchorage alone.
In my own town, it would be unwise to spend any time in the woods without at least a .45 caliber pistol. People go in with less, but they are gambling thier lives.
So, you live in the alaskan bush -- a situation so distinct and remote to normal life in the us?
What makes you think, then, that your situation is a valid argument for the rest of the urban population of the us, hmmm?
Numinus, this is no secret. Yes. 59°2′48″N, 158°30′31″W is roughly my coordinate. Check it out.
Most would say so. It is a largely Native American community, that is at the headwaters of the most signifigant salmon fishery in the world. Except for a 20mile access road, there is no outside road connection. The only access here is through airplane or a 2 week boat ride from Anchorage. We have virtually no cell phones, no stop lights, We have an outdoor ice rink, a gravel basketball court. So yeah pretty remote.
Here it is folks, the very shift of focus I listed as an example...he uses. His original contention was that Bunz was lying about where he lives. What an ignorant fool!
But you did not answer the question.
What makes you think that the necessities in your geographic condition (gun ownership being one) could somehow justify gun ownership for the rest of urban america?
Taking into account the fact that, what you are using to kill your dinner is being used to kill people in the rest of the country, hmmm?
I dont think ones geographic location need determine the criteria for gun ownership. I can see one living just fine without guns elsewhere. Life without guns in my community would have a hugely negative effect.
They are used to kill people here to. Just like they are used to kill dinner elsewhere. Using this argument, we had better start banning sharp objects as well.
Werbung:
Exactly.
So when you claimed that it is a necessity for your continued survival, you cannot possibly say that holds for the rest of the country, no?
At the very least, your post was designed to misrepresent facts surrounding gun ownership.
Not really. Surely, knives are being used to kill people, also. But nothing close to the magnitude that guns are being used to kill people.
And of course, knives are less effecient at it.
Similar threads
