Re: Good for the Sandy Hook families!

by **Rocinante** 2016-02-22, 23:50

xsanguine wrote:
Rocinante wrote:I'd call it mid-shelf. It's about 35 a fifth.

Do you like Irish whisky better than Tennessee whiskey or bourbon?

No, just like then all at different times.

by **xsanguine** 2016-02-22, 23:53

Variety is the spice of life.

by **Rocinante** 2016-02-22, 23:55

xsanguine wrote:Variety is the spice of life.

And alcohol is the nectar of the gods.

by **Vlad** 2016-02-23, 09:01

xsanguine wrote:
DWags wrote:

Is it possible to prove that someone who has sought out and received mental health help has decided not to kill people? How do we go about proving that? Is it possible to to prove that a patient getting on the right health care got proper meds and then didn't kill his family and neighbors? How do we go about proving that?

That's my question and why I'm not so sure we'll get very far there. Perhaps changing the culture around how we deal with mental health will pay dividends down the road but I don't think anyone could say with a straight face it would have an impact right now.

I see it as an inevitable conclusion. The aim is not to solve the mental health crisis, it is to ban guns. That is the end game. This game will continue regardless if you abolish the military and put all of the money that went there into mental health.

That's why there's not a lot of talk about that and more around tightening controls from legal gun owners without mental health issues. There's no genuine interest in solving mental health... it's a proxy battle in the war against rights.

Can't speak for others, but banning guns isn't my "end game." As I said earlier, I'm open to purchasing a basic handgun myself some time in the future, for home defense. Not likely to happen, but I'm certainly not morally against it.

In any case, over a long enough timeline, Conservatives lose all of these battles. Every single one. The changes in demographics and social values are forces that can't be stopped. So cling to your guns and Bibles for a bit longer if you must. Eventually you'll find yourself on the wrong side of history once again.

by **Death Roe** 2016-02-23, 09:04

Going to go to Verizon today to adjust my plan. Maybe grab some Taco Bell on the way home.

by **Robert J Sakimano** 2016-02-23, 09:15

Death Roe wrote:Going to go to Verizon today to adjust my plan. Maybe grab some Taco Bell on the way home.

be on the lookout for brown people.

Good luck.

by **xsanguine** 2016-02-23, 09:32

Vlad wrote:
xsanguine wrote:

That's my question and why I'm not so sure we'll get very far there. Perhaps changing the culture around how we deal with mental health will pay dividends down the road but I don't think anyone could say with a straight face it would have an impact right now.

I see it as an inevitable conclusion. The aim is not to solve the mental health crisis, it is to ban guns. That is the end game. This game will continue regardless if you abolish the military and put all of the money that went there into mental health.

That's why there's not a lot of talk about that and more around tightening controls from legal gun owners without mental health issues. There's no genuine interest in solving mental health... it's a proxy battle in the war against rights.

Can't speak for others, but banning guns isn't my "end game." As I said earlier, I'm open to purchasing a basic handgun myself some time in the future, for home defense. Not likely to happen, but I'm certainly not morally against it.

In any case, over a long enough timeline, Conservatives lose all of these battles. Every single one. The changes in demographics and social values are forces that can't be stopped. So cling to your guns and Bibles for a bit longer if you must. Eventually you'll find yourself on the wrong side of history once again.

I'm atheist and have never owned a gun. I did fire one once in Boy Scouts about 20 years ago.

When has prohibition ever been on the "right" side of history?

by **Rocinante** 2016-02-23, 09:57

xsanguine wrote:
Vlad wrote:

Can't speak for others, but banning guns isn't my "end game." As I said earlier, I'm open to purchasing a basic handgun myself some time in the future, for home defense. Not likely to happen, but I'm certainly not morally against it.

In any case, over a long enough timeline, Conservatives lose all of these battles. Every single one. The changes in demographics and social values are forces that can't be stopped. So cling to your guns and Bibles for a bit longer if you must. Eventually you'll find yourself on the wrong side of history once again.

I'm atheist and have never owned a gun. I did fire one once in Boy Scouts about 20 years ago.

When has prohibition ever been on the "right" side of history?

Slavery?

by **xsanguine** 2016-02-23, 10:29

Rocinante wrote:
xsanguine wrote:

I'm atheist and have never owned a gun. I did fire one once in Boy Scouts about 20 years ago.

When has prohibition ever been on the "right" side of history?

Slavery?

That's abolition.

by **Robert J Sakimano** 2016-02-23, 10:33

can we ban white people?

they seem to cause much more problems than the brown/black people republicans are so concerned with..

by **The_Dude** 2016-02-23, 10:47

Robert J Sakimano wrote:can we ban white people?

they seem to cause much more problems than the brown/black people republicans are so concerned with..

You should feel guilty for being white Bob.

by **Robert J Sakimano** 2016-02-23, 10:48

The_Dude wrote:
Robert J Sakimano wrote:can we ban white people?

they seem to cause much more problems than the brown/black people republicans are so concerned with..

You should feel guilty for being white Bob.

I feel guilty for being Bob.

by **The_Dude** 2016-02-23, 11:13

Robert J Sakimano wrote:
The_Dude wrote:

You should feel guilty for being white Bob.
I feel guilty for being Bob.

I'll pray for you that one day you may overcome your white guiltness with the help our of savior Jesus Christ

by **Robert J Sakimano** 2016-02-23, 11:14

The_Dude wrote:
Robert J Sakimano wrote:I feel guilty for being Bob.

I'll pray for you that one day you may overcome your white guiltness with the help our of savior Jesus Christ

also include your prayers that I not come into contact with brown-ish/black people, please.

remember, I'm unarmed.

by **Rocinante** 2016-02-23, 14:44

xsanguine wrote:
Rocinante wrote:

Slavery?

That's abolition.

What's the difference again?

by **The_Dude** 2016-02-23, 15:17

Rocinante wrote:
xsanguine wrote:

That's abolition.

What's the difference again?

Good for the Sandy Hook families! - Page 8 502811600

by **Rocinante** 2016-02-23, 15:46

The_Dude wrote:
Rocinante wrote:

What's the difference again?

I'm serious. Abolition is the act of abolishing something. Prohibition is the act of prohibiting something. If we're talking about the common usage, prohibition actually only refers to alcohol, just as abolition only refers to slavery. But the root meaning of both words is to "get rid of something through the action of an authority". So something that was prohibited (or abolished) that was a good thing, was slavery. The point stands.

by **xsanguine** 2016-02-23, 16:34

Here's the difference as I see it. Abolition in this context refers to removing a law in order to gain something... In the example of slavery the law is abolished to gain freedom.

Prohibition refers to adding a law in order to prohibit something. For example alcohol, narcotics, firearms, etc.

When you are removing a law that impedes freedom/liberty, you are abolishing that law. You are not prohibiting that law.
When you are adding a law that impedes freedom/liberty, that law is a prohibition of whatever the subject of that law is. You are not abolishing anything, you are adding a layer of prohibition.

by **Rocinante** 2016-02-23, 16:37

xsanguine wrote:Here's the difference as I see it. Abolition in this context refers to removing a law in order to gain something... In the example of slavery the law is abolished to gain freedom.

Prohibition refers to adding a law in order to prohibit something. For example alcohol, narcotics, firearms, etc.

When you are removing a law that impedes freedom/liberty, you are abolishing that law. You are not prohibiting that law.
When you are adding a law that impedes freedom/liberty, that law is a prohibition of whatever the subject of that law is. You are not abolishing anything, you are adding a layer of prohibition.

But wouldn't the passing 13 amendment be considered "adding" something?

by **xsanguine** 2016-02-23, 17:28

Rocinante wrote:
xsanguine wrote:Here's the difference as I see it. Abolition in this context refers to removing a law in order to gain something... In the example of slavery the law is abolished to gain freedom.

Prohibition refers to adding a law in order to prohibit something. For example alcohol, narcotics, firearms, etc.

When you are removing a law that impedes freedom/liberty, you are abolishing that law. You are not prohibiting that law.
When you are adding a law that impedes freedom/liberty, that law is a prohibition of whatever the subject of that law is. You are not abolishing anything, you are adding a layer of prohibition.

But wouldn't the passing 13 amendment be considered "adding" something?

Wasn't the 13th amendment added to replace a law indicating the non-human designation of blacks? I'm too mentally exhausted to look anything up (as usual).

by **Rocinante** 2016-02-23, 17:46

Black people were designated as 3/5 of a person for representation and appropriations of tax monies prior to the 13th. They were always called "persons" though.

by **xsanguine** 2016-02-23, 19:49

Rocinante wrote:Black people were designated as 3/5 of a person for representation and appropriations of tax monies prior to the 13th. They were always called "persons" though.

Slaves, that is. Free blacks counted the same as whites.

At least according to all the sources I've been pulling up.

by **xsanguine** 2016-02-23, 20:01

After thinking about it for a bit I'm going to go ahead and agree with you on the abolition/prohibition thing, Roc. At least in the loose, semantic sense of what we're discussing.

My point was there's a huge difference between allowing people freedoms and taking away freedoms. So when we use the words prohibition we're most often referring to something tangible that is taken away. Abolition of something is usually abolition of a concept... something not tangible in the physical sense. But I do think they can be used in most instances as interchangeable words... probably not all, but in most situations off the top of my head.

I can't believe you hung around in one of my arguments over semantics for that long, though. Good for the Sandy Hook families! - Page 8 502811600

So I applaud you on that point alone, heh.

by Guest 2016-10-15, 18:28

Hopefully this spells the end of this ill conceived attempt at using a tragedy to try to bring down the gun industry. I had my doubts about how Judge Bellis might handle this initially, but her ruling in this case wound up providing the clarity that was needed. The PLCAA is clear in both its wording and intent. When a properly functioning, legal firearm is used by a bad actor to commit crimes but was not knowingly sold to them by the manufacturer or a distributor, the manufacturer is not liable for those actions. In this case, the guns were legally sold to the shooter’s mother who followed all the rules. The shooter stole the weapons from her to commit his crimes. The chain of production, delivery and ownership was broken, so Bushmaster was not at fault.

If there’s anything remarkable about this ruling it’s only that it took so long to reach this point. The conclusion should have been obvious from the moment the case was first submitted. A more vindictive person might argue that the plaintiffs should be held liable for all the court costs incurred by Bushmaster, but given the emotional entanglements surrounding the case I somehow doubt that’s going to happen.

#2A victory: Bushmaster granted immunity in Sandy Hook case

by Sponsored content