Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating

     

Left Nav S-B Home Register FAQ Members List S-B on Facebook Arcade WEAX Tides Buoys Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Right Nav

Left Container Right Container
 

Go Back   Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating Striper Chat - Discuss stuff other than fishing ~ The Scuppers and Political talk Political Threads

Political Threads This section is for Political Threads - Enter at your own risk. If you say you don't want to see what someone posts - don't read it :hihi:

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
Old 11-03-2017, 09:50 AM   #61
zimmy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Bethany CT
Posts: 2,209
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT View Post

Zimmy, if I gave you a bowl of 100 skittles, and told you that 1 of them was poisoned, how many would you eat? How many would you let your loved ones eat? Answer - zero. People aren't candy, so it's not a perfect analogy, but it's not a meaningless analogy either.
Bogus analogy. There have been several million Muslim immigrants in the last 25 years and the crime and terrorism rate is lower for the Muslim population than white males. It isn't 1 in 100 skittles. it is one in 500,000. When you weight the cost/benefits of immigration and refuge relocation, I will take those odds fine.

My eyes is goin' crazy!
zimmy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-03-2017, 10:03 AM   #62
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 5,535
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT View Post
But I'll say two things..

(1) ...people who opposed seat belt laws, and people who always oppose gun regulation, often use this kind of an argument..."the law won't guarantee that there will be zero deaths going forward". That is a very, very common argument, and it's completely absurd.

I've actually never heard anyone say this....

(2) we currently ban the possession of all kinds of things...that in and of itself, isn't a totalitarian concept. I don't want George Soros to have a nuke just because he can afford one.

have we banned George Soros from owning nukes??
scottw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-03-2017, 10:15 AM   #63
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 6,373
Quote:
Originally Posted by scottw View Post
have we banned George Soros from owning nukes??
You've never heard people argue against gun control, by saying "this legislation would not have prevented this attack"?

Banning bump stocks doesn't guarantee that this kook would not have shot up the concert in Vegas. It very possibly, could have saved some lives.
Jim in CT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-03-2017, 10:19 AM   #64
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 6,373
Quote:
Originally Posted by zimmy View Post
Bogus analogy. There have been several million Muslim immigrants in the last 25 years and the crime and terrorism rate is lower for the Muslim population than white males. It isn't 1 in 100 skittles. it is one in 500,000. When you weight the cost/benefits of immigration and refuge relocation, I will take those odds fine.
"the crime and terrorism rate is lower for the Muslim population than white males" Sure, death at the hands of Islamic jihadists, is not the #1 cause of death in the USA. That doesn't mean it's not a very serious issue.

"It isn't 1 in 100 skittles. it is one in 500,000"

I don't know what the % is, I have heard it's as high as 3% - 5% who support the jihad. It's not 1 in 500,000, that would mean 4,000 jihadists. No one knows what the number is.

"I will take those odds fine"

You have every right to say that. And I have every right to say, "I don't want to roll those dice". I don't think that makes you an idiot, and I sure don't think my stance makes me an idiot. Nor do I think it makes me an Islamophobe, which is how most people on the left describe my position.
Jim in CT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-03-2017, 10:39 AM   #65
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 5,535
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT View Post
You've never heard people argue against gun control, by saying "this legislation would not have prevented this attack"?
that's not what you wrote...





Originally Posted by Jim in CT View Post
But I'll say two things..

(1) ...people who opposed seat belt laws, and people who always oppose gun regulation, often use this kind of an argument..."the law won't guarantee that there will be zero deaths going forward".
scottw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-03-2017, 10:44 AM   #66
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 6,373
Quote:
Originally Posted by scottw View Post
that's not what you wrote...





Originally Posted by Jim in CT View Post
But I'll say two things..

(1) ...people who opposed seat belt laws, and people who always oppose gun regulation, often use this kind of an argument..."the law won't guarantee that there will be zero deaths going forward".
Good Lord...the argument I am refuting, is the argument (flawed in my opinion) that if a law isn't perfect, that it therefore shouldn't be enacted. Many, many people use this approach to protest gun laws. They also used it to protest seat belt laws, which admittedly aren't perfect, but clearly have saved lives.
Jim in CT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-03-2017, 10:47 AM   #67
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 5,535
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT View Post
Good Lord...the argument I am refuting, is the argument (flawed in my opinion) that if a law isn't perfect, that it therefore shouldn't be enacted. Many, many people use this approach to protest gun laws. They also used it to protest seat belt laws, which admittedly aren't perfect, but clearly have saved lives.
you keep making stuff up
scottw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-03-2017, 12:28 PM   #68
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 2,749
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT View Post
Good Lord...the argument I am refuting, is the argument (flawed in my opinion) that if a law isn't perfect, that it therefore shouldn't be enacted. Many, many people use this approach to protest gun laws. They also used it to protest seat belt laws, which admittedly aren't perfect, but clearly have saved lives.
This really belongs in another thread. But . . . oh well . . . in the first place, you refuse to see the flaw in using criminal law as an analogy for justifying a limit to Constitutional law . . . and you keep repeating the contradiction that limiting the Second Amendment will save a few lives.

Limiting the Second amendment endangers the lives of the entire nation by incrementally unlimiting government. You somehow are OK with that if it saves even one life. The only way, in my opinion, that could be your point of view is that you don't actually believe in the purpose for which the Amendment was written. In which case, the most logical proposition would be not to tweak the Amendment, but to abolish it.

And that goes for all the other limitations you perceive to exist on the other rights the Constitution protects. So the whole thing should be abolished. Write a new one. Or, more conveniently, do as the Progressives do, just make new laws and appoint judges who will uphold them.
detbuch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-03-2017, 01:34 PM   #69
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 6,373
Quote:
Originally Posted by scottw View Post
you keep making stuff up
No I'm not. Read the thread on the Vegas shooting. Read TDF's post #31 here, where he says that bans on bump stocks won't stop everyone from having them - once again, if the law isn't perfect, that means it's a bad law?

I don't have media research data at my fingertips. But I listen to what people are saying. Many, many people who oppose gun laws, use this logic. In my opinion, it's flawed logic. I doubt there's a single law on our books that's 100% effective.
Jim in CT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-03-2017, 01:40 PM   #70
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 6,373
Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch View Post
This really belongs in another thread. But . . . oh well . . . in the first place, you refuse to see the flaw in using criminal law as an analogy for justifying a limit to Constitutional law . . . and you keep repeating the contradiction that limiting the Second Amendment will save a few lives.

Limiting the Second amendment endangers the lives of the entire nation by incrementally unlimiting government. You somehow are OK with that if it saves even one life. The only way, in my opinion, that could be your point of view is that you don't actually believe in the purpose for which the Amendment was written. In which case, the most logical proposition would be not to tweak the Amendment, but to abolish it.

And that goes for all the other limitations you perceive to exist on the other rights the Constitution protects. So the whole thing should be abolished. Write a new one. Or, more conveniently, do as the Progressives do, just make new laws and appoint judges who will uphold them.
"This really belongs in another thread"

I agree. I didn't insert it here, someone else did.

"Limiting the Second amendment endangers the lives of the entire nation by incrementally unlimiting government."

So if the government wants to ban bump stocks, it's reasonable to assume the next step, is they will, what? Kill me and take my IRA? That's tin foil hat conspiracy theory.

Again, the founding fathers made it clear through their actions, that the Bill Of Rights isn't absolute.

"you don't actually believe in the purpose for which the Amendment was written. In which case, the most logical proposition would be not to tweak the Amendment, but to abolish it."

OK, so unless one thinks bump stocks should be allowed, one has zero regard for the US Constutution. Not everything ends up at one radical extreme or the other. Again, I can go on TV and call the President horrible names, the First Amendment gives me that right. But I can't threaten him or anyone else. The freedoms are not an "all or nothing" scenario, and I cannot fathom you would state that they are.
Jim in CT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-03-2017, 02:16 PM   #71
wdmso
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Somerset MA
Posts: 1,527
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman View Post
Did you get that off a fortune cookie
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
it should be

I admit I drink my share of kool aid but happily I can say its not from 1 source or 1 flavor
wdmso is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-03-2017, 03:03 PM   #72
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 2,749
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT View Post
"Limiting the Second amendment endangers the lives of the entire nation by incrementally unlimiting government."

So if the government wants to ban bump stocks,

What do you mean by "the" government.

. . . it's reasonable to assume the next step, is they will, what? Kill me and take my IRA? That's tin foil hat conspiracy theory.

From what those in the "federal" government have been doing and further trying to do for around a century, it's reasonable to assume there will be a next step. You're absurd examples of what that might be are weak, not at all persuasive in assuming there won't be a next step. Using illogic to feign logic not only lacks persuasion, it implies that the reasoning is illogical--it sounds like tin foil counter argument.

Again, the founding fathers made it clear through their actions, that the Bill Of Rights isn't absolute.

They did not. The Bill of Rights, as well as all the other inherent rights, are absolute within the Constitution's scale and meaning. Outside of that, the Constitution has no absolution, but has various influences and implications.

You're a mathematician. Does 2+2 always equal 4? No, not in nominal, ordinal, or interval scales. But in ratio scales 2+2 always equals 4.

The Founder's actions, if "interpreted" within the political scale in which they wrote the Constitution, do make those rights absolute. That has been explained several times in previous posts in other threads. You either don't understand the explanations, or just don't accept them. You counter them, not with legal arguments, but with emotional ones and irrelevant or absurd analogies.


"you don't actually believe in the purpose for which the Amendment was written. In which case, the most logical proposition would be not to tweak the Amendment, but to abolish it."

OK, so unless one thinks bump stocks should be allowed, one has zero regard for the US Constutution. Not everything ends up at one radical extreme or the other. Again, I can go on TV and call the President horrible names, the First Amendment gives me that right. But I can't threaten him or anyone else. The freedoms are not an "all or nothing" scenario, and I cannot fathom you would state that they are.
The Constitution is not radically "extreme." It was rationally hammered out as the best way to insure equal rights and freedoms before the law. Implying that individuals are prone to error or lawlessness must therefor mean that laws have limits leaves us, and would have left the Founders, with either creating anarchic government or a system of government for which there is no end to exceptions.

Exceptions for human transgression against law in cases of extreme urgency can always, without creating laws for every possible exception, be implied. It would be absolutely reasonable to understand the existence of such a right. No law need be written to express that idea. That would be inherent in human nature. Probably part of those vast residuum of rights left to the people which are outside of the government's enumerated constitutional powers. But the threads of human nature are too vast to be defined.

Government, on the other hand, and its laws, must necessarily be defined. Loose definitions cannot suffice for law. For there to be compliance, there must be definite parameters to law, extreme exceptions to compliance notwithstanding.

So defined government has little to no room to legislate outside of the scale to which it is constitutionally bound. If there is no constitution, no scale, there is no boundary and government can do as it wishes.

It could be understood that there may arise a very extreme circumstance that a constitutionally limited government would have to act outside of the scope granted to it, usually involving some sort of an existential threat to the nation. That is why a strong executive was created by the Constitution, but such a circumstance would have to be of the utmost danger. The mass shootings, common murders, etc., are not at that level of threat to the nation. It is far more of a threat to the people of this nation if their right of defense against tyranny was limited because of criminal disturbances in various states.

As for freedoms not being an all or nothing scenario as you put it, they must be discussed in terms of the Founders understanding of freedom. That has also been described several times in various threads. In what way is the Founders view of freedom not absolute?

Last edited by detbuch; 11-03-2017 at 03:15 PM..
detbuch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-03-2017, 03:11 PM   #73
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 2,749
Quote:
Originally Posted by wdmso View Post
it should be

I admit I drink my share of kool aid but happily I can say its not from 1 source or 1 flavor
Your sources appear to be far more limited than those with whom you disagree.
detbuch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-04-2017, 10:49 AM   #74
ReelinRod
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
ReelinRod's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Upper Bucks County PA
Posts: 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by wdmso View Post
Smart enough to see Murder is murder reguardless on the motivation
No. Liberals only get outraged when the killer is a White male. Liberals are happy to ignore the majority of murder and focus on the lighting strikes of mass casualty events. That attention cools and dies as quick as welding slag if the killer is a minority (San Bernardino).

Liberals scream 'RACISM' when ever any note is made that 6.7% of the nation's population comprise 53% of gun homicides.


Quote:
Originally Posted by wdmso View Post
And smart enough to understand that Conservatives care more about who did the killing when it fits their anti Immigration agenda
And the left's disingenuousness starts right there, in how you define conservative's position as a generalized "anti-immigration agenda". I don't know any conservative that is against legal immigration, outrage about illegal immigrant murderers is multi-layered. Just a few:

Illegal border crossers and visa overstays are law breakers simply by being here -- there is no such thing as a "law-abiding illegal immigrant" (see my sig-line).

We are disgusted that liberals are so eager to ignore the crimes of illegal immigrants -- to the point of declaring certain areas of the USA to be a sanctuary for them. They get released back into society even if there is a detention order on them. Our disgust turns to rage when one of those released criminals kills an American; the blood-guilt for those deaths lays at your feet.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wdmso View Post
your up to speed on 2a issues and arguments I suggest you broaden your reading .. its easy being a 1 trick pony
LOL. The reason I focus on gun rights is precisely because liberals think the 2nd Amendment is a single issue discussion. They think they are just talking about "guns" but so much more is exposed.

The 2nd Amendment and gun rights is a benchmark for one's understanding and respect for the fundamental principles of the Constitution. Liberals are willing (if not eager) to rationalize carving-out this right from the "rational continuum" of liberty for special treatment, ignoring inviolate rules and principles to achieve what they deem to be, much more important social policy objectives (i.e., "public safety").

In other words, how a person considers the 2nd Amendment is a short but reliable test to expose a wide breadth of deficiencies in understanding of the Constitution and its application (the legitimate extent of government).

I recognize that some "conservatives" have their own litmus test . . . (i.e., abortion and LGBTQ rights) that expose their deficiencies in understanding and applying the Constitution.

As far as I'm concerned -- being an Originalist / Strict Constructionist -- in their beliefs on the extent of government's powers over citizens, dogma governed social/cultural conservatives and Constitution-ignoring leftists have more in common than social/cultural conservatives and Constitutional Originalist conservatives.

Each see government having a role in "regulating" (if not outlawing) what they consider, their fellow citizen's unacceptable behavior. That many dogma governed social/cultural conservatives cloak themselves in the claim that they are Originalists or Strict Constructionists disgusts me as much as the misrepresentations of living constitution leftists.

.



Allowing an illegal border crosser to stay in the US with amnesty and start the legal immigration process
is like allowing a bank robber to go free and keep the money as long as he fills out a loan application.
ReelinRod is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-04-2017, 11:36 AM   #75
ReelinRod
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
ReelinRod's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Upper Bucks County PA
Posts: 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT View Post
But you are 100% correct, it's amazingly hypocritical for conservatives to attack liberals for using the Vegas attack to advocate for gun control, and then do the same thing by using this terror attack to advocate for immigration security.
I think the real reason Republicans quickly said, "this isn't the time", is to spare Democrats the embarrassment of going off the deep-end proposing knee-jerk, ridiculously ineffective policy. If the Dem's can be counted for anything it is acting the fool when it looks like more than two decades of gun control blue-balls are about to be released.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT View Post
There is nothing wrong, in the wake of any tragedy, to advocate for policies that would make another tragedy less likely. Both sides do it, yet each side acts as if only the other side does it. It's stupid.
One big difference between these instances is that Republican proposals would have an effect on the particular type of event. Just like liberals say, 'if there were no guns nobody would get shot; let's like, you know, get rid of them', righties say 'if we had a firm handle on who comes in we wouldn't be suffering these crimes at the hands of non-citizens'.

Big hint, only one side's "solution" to the "problem" are both reasonable and have a chance of being effective.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT View Post
I don't get how any sane person can be opposed to our being aggressive and vigilant in the war on terror. Nor do I get how any sane person can think that the second amendment is absolute. Each of those two extreme positions, defies common sense.
I can admit that the 2nd Amendment is not absolute if you can agree that that truth does not mean that any gun law the left can think up is constitutional.

It's hilarious, the people who most employ the "absolute right" line are anti-gunners. I rarely hear any such thing from pro-gunners; when the government can take someone's life, how can any right be said to be "absolute"?

The term when employed by anti-gunners is intended to quash dialogue rather than nurture it. It is uttered in the hope that the reader has as superficial an understanding of the issue as the speaker, so the speaker's opinion that any law the left can think up is A-OK is agreed to.

.



Allowing an illegal border crosser to stay in the US with amnesty and start the legal immigration process
is like allowing a bank robber to go free and keep the money as long as he fills out a loan application.
ReelinRod is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-04-2017, 12:13 PM   #76
ReelinRod
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
ReelinRod's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Upper Bucks County PA
Posts: 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT View Post
I'll have it.

Just because you can't guarantee a body count of zero, doesn't mean you don't try to do what you can.
Well, since you have picked a position for me and you and the guy in your mirror have arrived at a conclusion, I don't see any room for me in your "conversation".



Allowing an illegal border crosser to stay in the US with amnesty and start the legal immigration process
is like allowing a bank robber to go free and keep the money as long as he fills out a loan application.
ReelinRod is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-04-2017, 12:30 PM   #77
ReelinRod
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
ReelinRod's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Upper Bucks County PA
Posts: 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman View Post
Just because they are illegal, doesn't mean people won't have them.

now that people are aware of the technology....they'll be making them in their garage. Looks like a very simple item to make.
The problem is that the legislation now being pushed through bans anything that facilitates a more rapid cycle of fire in a semi-automatic. An aftermarket match trigger that has a faster reset than a stock trigger would fall under the law.

Nearly everyone will be in violation of the law; we are going to forced to cut off the belt loops on our pants . . .






Allowing an illegal border crosser to stay in the US with amnesty and start the legal immigration process
is like allowing a bank robber to go free and keep the money as long as he fills out a loan application.
ReelinRod is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:57 PM.


Powered by vBulletin. Copyright 2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Please use all necessary and proper safety precautions. STAY SAFE Striper Talk Forums
Copyright 1998-20012 Striped-Bass.com