Members banned from this thread: KnotaFrayed


View Poll Results: If a child hits another child with a stick.

Voters
11. You may not vote on this poll
  • Give every child a stick.

    0 0%
  • Give a few people concealed sticks and stick training.

    1 9.09%
  • Take away the stick

    10 90.91%
Page 5 of 11 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 104
Thanks Tree73Thanks

Thread: If a child hits another child with a stick.

  1. #41
    the "good" prag pragmatic's Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    30,803
    Thanks
    18951

    From
    between Moon and NYC
    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Jeffrey View Post
    While one would certainly take the stick away from that child, one would not therefore prohibit all children from having or handling sticks.

    Yeah, this particular attempt at an analogy falls apart pretty quick.
    Thanks from Ian Jeffrey

  2. #42
    Veteran Member Chief's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    27,486
    Thanks
    8213

    From
    Earth
    Quote Originally Posted by Devil505 View Post
    What should adults do?
    You don't have any means of controlling all the "sticks" so you may as well plan your stick confiscation the day after you see a Leprechaun ride down the street on a Unicorn.

  3. #43
    Bizarroland Observer Thx1138's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    22,696
    Thanks
    13772

    From
    aMEEErica
    Quote Originally Posted by Chief View Post
    You don't have any means of controlling all the "sticks" so you may as well plan your stick confiscation the day after you see a Leprechaun ride down the street on a Unicorn.
    But how do other countries manage to regulate their "sticks"?

    Same Leprechauns?

    Thx
    Thanks from Devil505

  4. #44
    the "good" prag pragmatic's Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    30,803
    Thanks
    18951

    From
    between Moon and NYC
    Quote Originally Posted by Devil505 View Post
    What should adults do?
    This is an easy one.

    If an adult hits another adult with a stick, then take away his stick. Or if he stabs someone you should take away his knife.

    Shoots someone?? Then take away his gun.


    But as a result of this incident we don't then forbid the rest of the population access to sticks, knives and guns.....

  5. #45
    Veteran Member Chief's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    27,486
    Thanks
    8213

    From
    Earth
    Quote Originally Posted by Thx1138 View Post
    But how do other countries manage to regulate their "sticks"?

    Same Leprechauns?

    Thx
    How many countries are identical to the USA?

  6. #46
    Bizarroland Observer Thx1138's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    22,696
    Thanks
    13772

    From
    aMEEErica
    Quote Originally Posted by Chief View Post
    How many countries are identical to the USA?
    Why do they have to be identical?

    Are you going to say they don't have violent video games or something?

    Take two dissimilar countries, the UK and Japan... does the UK have more in common culturally with Japan than it does with the US?

    Thx
    Thanks from OldGaffer, Devil505 and Leo2

  7. #47
    Veteran Member Chief's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    27,486
    Thanks
    8213

    From
    Earth
    Quote Originally Posted by Thx1138 View Post
    Why do they have to be identical?

    Are you going to say they don't have violent video games or something?

    Take two dissimilar countries, the UK and Japan... does the UK have more in common culturally with Japan than it does with the US?

    Thx
    Neither are like the US. May as well ask if an orange is more like an apple or a grape.

  8. #48
    Bizarroland Observer Thx1138's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    22,696
    Thanks
    13772

    From
    aMEEErica
    Quote Originally Posted by Chief View Post
    Neither are like the US. May as well ask if an orange is more like an apple or a grape.
    Nope, now you are trying to pass another "strawman," textbook example.

    Thx
    Thanks from Devil505

  9. #49
    Veteran Member Moorhuhn Wanted Champion Hollywood's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    68,401
    Thanks
    32864

    From
    Memphis, Tn.
    Quote Originally Posted by Chief View Post
    How many countries are identical to the USA?
    How many countries are identical to any other country?
    Thanks from Thx1138 and Leo2

  10. #50
    Human Bean KnotaFrayed's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    14,247
    Thanks
    11772

    From
    Here
    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Jeffrey View Post
    While one would certainly take the stick away from that child, one would not therefore prohibit all children from having or handling sticks.
    Since the NRA and supporters of the NRA position on Amendment II is that Amendment II is NOT about a "common defense" where "well regulated Miltia" are necessary to that purpose and want to interpret it as an individual right of defense (which is different than a right to any and every sort of arms that exist), then here's a thought to go along with your response to the stick theory.

    Instead of law enforcement and well regulated Militias working for a common defense, let's literally make it about personal/individual self defense and let's be literal, since some want no limitation on AR-15 style weapons even as they seem to have no problems with limitations on other arms.

    Let's be literal and let's see this as an individual right to "keep and bear arms that shall not be infringed". "Shall not be infringed" will be literal, meaning NO limitation, whatsoever.

    Let parents send ALL their children (children are people and remember, there is NO specification for ANY sort of limitation or infringement) to school armed. Let's arm the janitor, the school nurse, the sports team coaches, the groundskeepers, the principle, all administrators and all the teachers as planned. Let them all attend all school meetings, fully armed....

    THEN, let's, as we do now, have "fun" trying to sort out (by some sort of mind reading capacity some seem to think exists) who/which of all the people armed in the U.S......are the "good guys" who are the "bad guys".......so that we may know how to stop them, NOT AFTER they kill 17, 20, 58 or wound hundreds, but BEFORE........

    A means to prevent fewer people from dying from influenza, is NOT to discourage people from getting a flu shot, but TO encourage them to get one. NO, it is not going to be 100% effective, but unless someone is a sadist or a masochist, flu shots REDUCE the number of people who get fatally ill from influenza.

    With regard to firearms, since human beings have yet to acquire the skill of mind reading (in spite of some people's apparent belief that might be possible), the difference between a bad guy with a gun in their hand and a good guy with a gun in their hand, is not the gun, but what they intend to do with that gun. Because we cannot read their mind and the only way we know their ill intent, is for them to shoot someone or many. The only factor that CAN be controlled to reduce what we cannot control, IS the firearm.

    Some want to suggest that the assault weapons ban under Clinton had no affect and that only AR-15's are considered or were considered, under that ban. The fact is, there were handguns/pistols on the list of banned weapons and lo and behold, during that ban, by some "magic" coincidence.....homicide by handgun dropped DRAMATICALLY.....

    If you can't tell what students are going to use the stick to hit and hurt others with, intelligence would say you take the stick out of the picture. No, that does not mean a kid can find a stick and bring it amidst all the other kids and start hitting some with it, BUT you can't stop ANY kids from possessing sticks they can use against others, if they are ALL allowed to have sticks......if they are NOT, you CAN stop the kid walking into the playground or into school WITH a stick.

    Connecting certain dots seems to be a real challenge for some people and I imagine it causes some consternation in their lives because they don't seem to be able to connect the dots as to how they kick themselves in the butt.

    If we can limit how people are able to possess explosives and other weapons used for military combat, then we can place limitations on ANY sort of weapon AND we can still keep Amendment II in place, JUST AS WE DO NOW!! If we can infringe on the rights of "the people" who have committed felonies, then we can infringe on anyone's right, when it comes to protecting "the people" from the cost of easy access to deadly weapons in their society.

    We just have to decide as a people, when it comes to the base arguments in the issue.

    ONE: Does the statement "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" First, make up the entirety of Amendment II and if not, what does the other part mean, in relation to the "right"? Second, does "the people" refer to any and every human that lives under the constitution in this nation, including, women, children and literally, EVERY human in the U.S. (even if it referred to every citizen, children are still citizens and according to some, even fetuses are, too) "shall not be infringed" literal and incontrovertible and if it is, must we now remove, any and ALL infringements to "the people"?

    TWO: IF we, as we currently do, do NOT take "the people" or "shall not be infringed" literally and incontrovertibly, then limitations on firearms refers more to a will of they people through their system of government as to where those limitations lie, both in the type of weapons that are limited and the people they are limited to and as is already demonstrated, there is no incontrovertible "right" to any and all people (thus, the suggestion that self defense is an inalienable right related to any and all arms in existence, is a lie and false) and there is, as already demonstrated, no unlimited "right" to keep and bear any and all arms on an individual basis, then there is NO precedent to suggest there is, since we have already demonstrated any "right" in Amendment II is neither unlimited or incontrovertible.

    Justice Breyer refers to the ongoing argument as "circular reasoning". We can't say two things at once, especially when they are contradictory. We can't limit the types of weapons, individuals can own and possess, based in "common use" for military (common defense) then claim individuals have a right to keep and bear assault style weapons, without limitation. When all things lead back to a common usage for military (since there is no common usage for civilians), it would appear that the first half of Amendment II defines the second half or the "right". The first half of Amendment II defines what is "necessary to the security of a free state", that being "a well regulated Militia"......by definition, a "well regulated militia" is composed of citizen soldiers, who, in order to serve the "security of a free state" MUST HAVE, a right to keep and bear arms......it is NOT "necessary" for all others. At the same time, restricting certain weapons to "well regulated Militia" or law enforcement, does not mean all others have NO access to firearms. Certainly, as you may have been pointing out and as is NOW the case, people can obtain certain arms, with licenses and permits, which ARE infringements, upon an unfettered "right" to keep and bear, any and all arms in existence. The propaganda the NRA is spreading is that bans on all forms of firearms and all means of obtaining or keeping any of them, would occurred by any further institution of gun control. That is patently false and even if it were true, if it is the will of the people and of Congress, the NRA would simply be defying that will, if, it and its mere 5,000,000 membership are not already defying the will of the people, by using money, lies and a rating system on anyone in government to threaten them with smears should they NOT kowtow to the NRA and gun manufacturing lobby. https://www.snopes.com/nra-letter-wisconsin-judges/

    You can't keep making the argument that one cannot go down to the local gun store and make an unfettered purchase of a rocket launcher and plastique explosive because there is a limitation based on common use military weapons, then claim everyone has a right to keep and bear weapons designed for military assaults, just because a few features are different, but can be restored, with not so difficult modifications or legal accessories like bumpstocks.

    Those that seem to think motor vehicles and knives are just as dangerous and deadly as firearms are welcome to use their knives and automobiles to defend themselves in lieu of an AR-15 style weapon, since their argument is, they are just as deadly and effective or were designed for that specific purpose, like firearms. A right of self defense is a different thing that the way anyone defends themselves. No one in the world is barred from defending themselves and the very same people that want to argue every person should have a right of self defense via the best existing means are trying hard to ensure North Korea and Iran do NOT obtain the means to defend themselves, via the best existing means.
    Last edited by KnotaFrayed; 28th February 2018 at 12:14 AM.
    Thanks from Leo2

Page 5 of 11 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 224
    Last Post: 13th January 2016, 01:22 AM
  2. When is it okay to hit a child?
    By The Man in forum Current Events
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 14th October 2014, 04:03 PM
  3. Replies: 33
    Last Post: 15th September 2014, 05:44 AM
  4. Is needlessly sacrificing your child, as God did, child abuse and murder?
    By Gnostic Christian Bishop in forum Philosophy and Religion
    Replies: 42
    Last Post: 12th December 2013, 05:50 AM
  5. Replies: 200
    Last Post: 14th August 2013, 08:55 AM

Search tags for this page

Click on a term to search for related topics.

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed