Justices Agree on Right to Own Guns

[Bern80]

I didn't say there's an inherent harm in just owning automatic weapons. I would be fine with someone owning an automatic weapon* that was incapable of being fired. I was referring to the potential harm in every private person owning an automatic that was capable of being fired.

*using "weapon" as a synonym for "firearm"

and yet statistically there is greater potential for harm in owning an automobile. So that argument doesn't really fly either. this is an argument that can actually be measured. Based on passed data we can extrapolate how many deaths there will be as a result of car accidents. Surprise, surprise it's more than firearms. So this argument doesn't work either.

Now your argument is we should allow ownership by prioritizing the potential for harm. Statistically the potential for harm is greater with automobiles. So I suggest getting your priorities straight you good samaratin you, and focus on banning us from owning things that actually do have the greatest potential for harm. When you've cigarettes, alcohol, and cars knocked of the list then we can talk guns.

 

[M14 Shooter]

They'll take my penis from my cold, dead hands

I'm sure

Not really. One of the many purposes of legislation is prevention of harm. Rather than wait for harm, it can be foreseen and steps taken to prevent it.

And so, we're back to you agreeing that such a thing is sufficient to take away penises.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I didn't say there's an inherent harm in just owning automatic weapons.

So, where does that leave your argument, that I should not be allowed to own an automatic weapon, if there is no inherent harm in same?

I was referring to the potential harm in every private person owning an automatic

Is that any different than the potential harm in every man having a penis?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

So, where does that leave your argument, that I should not be allowed to own an automatic weapon, if there is no inherent harm in same?


Is that any different than the potential harm in every man having a penis?

Better point is the above one. Privately owned vehicles kill and maim a hell of a lot more people every year in EVERY country. Why is not that cause to ban the private ownership of motor vehicles, I mean if we are banning because of "potential and known harm"?

 

[Diuretic]

I'm sure


And so, we're back to you agreeing that such a thing is sufficient to take away penises.

A penis isn't an offensive weapon, it's friendly, well for the most part. It is capable of being misused that's true, but it's a piece of original equipment for roughly half of the population (for many the balls that usually come with it are optional extras). But more than that.

It's the original dual-purpose weapon. As such it's not subject to the controls that you're urging.

 

[Diuretic]

So, where does that leave your argument, that I should not be allowed to own an automatic weapon, if there is no inherent harm in same?

There's no inherent harm, I wasn't talking about that, I was referring to potential harm.

Is that any different than the potential harm in every man having a penis?

Isn't it awfully nice to have a penis
Isn't it frightfully good to have a dong
It's swell to have a stiffy
It's divine to own a dick
From the tiniest little tadger
To the world's biggest prick
So, three cheers for your Willy or John Thomas
Hooray for your one-eyed trouser snake
Your piece of pork, your wife's best friend
Your Percy, or your cock
You can wrap it up in ribbons
You can slip it in your sock
But don't take it out in public
Or they will stick you in the dock
And you won't come about

Courtesy of Monty Python (har!) as I'm sure you know.

 

[Diuretic]

Better point is the above one. Privately owned vehicles kill and maim a hell of a lot more people every year in EVERY country. Why is not that cause to ban the private ownership of motor vehicles, I mean if we are banning because of "potential and known harm"?

No problems, go right ahead.

 

[M14 Shooter]

There's no inherent harm, I wasn't talking about that, I was referring to potential harm.

Yes.
And the potential harm of everyone having a penis?
Its easy to demonstrate that legally owned penisis cause more actual harm that legally owned automatic weapons...

Further..
Given that you do not object to everyone owning semi-automatic weapons...
Show that the 'potential harm' of everyone owning an automatic weapon is sufficiently greater than that of everyone owning a semi-automatic version of an automatic weapon to justify the banning of one, but not the other.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

No problems, go right ahead.

Your entire argument fails because you can not use " potential harm" if you could there are a number of inanimate objects as well as products that should be banned, they cause more death ACTUALLY every year then all firearm deaths combined.

 

[Diuretic]

Yes.
And the potential harm of everyone having a penis?
Its easy to demonstrate that legally owned penisis cause more actual harm that legally owned automatic weapons...

Further..
Given that you do not object to everyone owning semi-automatic weapons...
Show that the 'potential harm' of everyone owning an automatic weapon is sufficiently greater than that of everyone owning a semi-automatic version of an automatic weapon to justify the banning of one, but not the other.

I refuse to register mine. True I might get a blue ribbon in a competition but I refuse to register it. It's, well, it's demeaning.

As for autos and semi-autos. Ever fired a full auto?

 

[Diuretic]

Your entire argument fails because you can not use " potential harm" if you could there are a number of inanimate objects as well as products that should be banned, they cause more death ACTUALLY every year then all firearm deaths combined.

I was only agreeing with you. If you want to ban motor vehicles because they cause deaths - and they do - then go ahead. I'm agreeing with you. Don't you get it? I agree. Go ahead, write your Congresscritter, get stuff banned. Make America safer, ban inanimate objects that may cause death.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I was only agreeing with you. If you want to ban motor vehicles because they cause deaths - and they do - then go ahead. I'm agreeing with you. Don't you get it? I agree. Go ahead, write your Congresscritter, get stuff banned. Make America safer, ban inanimate objects that may cause death.

SO you agree your argument is stupid? Thank you.

 

[Diuretic]

SO you agree your argument is stupid? Thank you.

No, I was agreeing with you, not criticising my own argument. I mean you want to ban inanimate objects that may cause death. I'm with you. Perhaps we can mount a pincer movement? I could probably pull a few strings and get our government to hop in and help out. What if we got it to the Security Council of the UN? What if we banned, oh I dunno... teapots...teapots are dangerous when they're used to hit you over the head. We could do a worldwide thing, ban teapots. I wonder if Bono would be interested? That'd be good, a concert, Central Park. We could have ads on tv, an animation of a teapot with a sign on it, "Stop me before I kill again!"

It works for me. How about you?

 

[M14 Shooter]

I refuse to register mine. True I might get a blue ribbon in a competition but I refuse to register it. It's, well, it's demeaning.

You're sidestepping the issue. Why?
How does your 'potential harm' argument not apply to penises?

As for autos and semi-autos. Ever fired a full auto?

Irrelevant.
Show that the 'potential harm' of everyone owning an automatic weapon is sufficiently greater than that of everyone owning a semi-automatic version of an automatic weapon to justify the banning of one, but not the other.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

You're sidestepping the issue. Why?
How does your 'potential harm' argument not apply to penises?


Irrelevant.
Show that the 'potential harm' of everyone owning an automatic weapon is sufficiently greater than that of everyone owning a semi-automatic version of an automatic weapon to justify the banning of one, but not the other.

Check out his ignorant attempt to side step in the post above yours. His whole argument depends on "potential" harm and yet we should not consider that in all the things he thinks are OK to own.

 

[Ravi]

fwiw, there are laws regulating penis ownership...

 

[Diuretic]

You're sidestepping the issue. Why?
How does your 'potential harm' argument not apply to penises?

Damn this is a hard room. I do my best stuff and I get cold stares.

Irrelevant.
Show that the 'potential harm' of everyone owning an automatic weapon is sufficiently greater than that of everyone owning a semi-automatic version of an automatic weapon to justify the banning of one, but not the other.

Again with the cold stares. Jeez I might have to find another line of work.

Two worlds - in one everyone owns a full auto, in the other everyone owns a semi-auto. Now, let's say the populations of both worlds are infected with a brain-damaging virus which makes everyone a homicidal maniac. Which world would you prefer to try your chances in?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Check out his ignorant attempt to side step in the post above yours. His whole argument depends on "potential" harm and yet we should not consider that in all the things he thinks are OK to own.

That's because "potential harm" isn't a sound argument, and he knows it.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Damn this is a hard room. I do my best stuff and I get cold stares.





Again with the cold stares. Jeez I might have to find another line of work.

Two worlds - in one everyone owns a full auto, in the other everyone owns a semi-auto. Now, let's say the populations of both worlds are infected with a brain-damaging virus which makes everyone a homicidal maniac. Which world would you prefer to try your chances in?

Ignorant as hell, but to be expected.

 

[Diuretic]

fwiw, there are laws regulating penis ownership...

I am totally against registration!