Seems JB may have started a movement... | Page 2 | Syracusefan.com

Seems JB may have started a movement...

it's an irrational point, along with the "purpose" argument. You can make that argument for a myriad of things. Liberty should be the only consideration.

Your "reasonable" middle ground is ban an inanimate object. Mine is secure our schools with armed officers. We will never meet in the middle.
Cars kill people, but they also transport people. Fire kills people, but it also warms them. Assault weapons kill people. Give me another purpose.

As for liberty--it is not an absolute. As Holmes said, no one is free to cry fire in a crowded theater.

And I don't buy your argument that armed officers would "secure" our schools. Make them more secure, perhaps.
 
Cars kill people, but they also transport people. Fire kills people, but it also warms them. Assault weapons kill people. Give me another purpose.

As for liberty--it is not an absolute. As Holmes said, no one is free to cry fire in a crowded theater.

And I don't buy your argument that armed officers would "secure" our schools. Make them more secure, perhaps.
See my post above re: making our schools fortresses.
 
Seriously... can people just think? If you're going to start a political thread, or one that is obviously going to vere VERY quickly in that direction, just start it on the OT board.
 
Cars kill people, but they also transport people. Fire kills people, but it also warms them. Assault weapons kill people. Give me another purpose.

As for liberty--it is not an absolute. As Holmes said, no one is free to cry fire in a crowded theater.

And I don't buy your argument that armed officers would "secure" our schools. Make them more secure, perhaps.


I will give you another reason - it allows people to defend their homes, lives and property.

It's being widely reported that when the shooter heard sirens that's when he turned the gun on himself. You have to wonder if he would have even attempted to go into the school if he knew and armed officer was stationed there.

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety - Benjamin Franklin
 
Seriously... can people just think? If you're going to start a political thread, or one that is obviously going to vere VERY quickly in that direction, just start it on the OT board.

Not sure why this bothers you so much. This thread was initially about another basketball coach expressing his opinion a few days after Boeheim had expressed his -- seems like it logically could go on either board. And if the mods think it belongs elsewhere, they'll move it.
 
I will give you another reason - it allows people to defend their homes, lives and property.

It's being widely reported that when the shooter heard sirens that's when he turned the gun on himself. You have to wonder if he would have even attempted to go into the school if he knew and armed officer was stationed there.

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety - Benjamin Franklin
You can defend your home with a shotgun. Or a dog.

Those guys who were involved in the writing of the founding documents were careful with their words. If Franklin had wanted to say what you are inferring he did say, he would have stated "They who can give up liberty to obtain safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." There is much import in the modifying adjectives "essential", "little" and "temporary".

(Sorry for the extreme edit: I just happened to think of a better way to express my point.)
 
Shall not be infringed.

The government has automatic rifles, so should its citizens. Who cares what some of you think I, or someone else needs, wants or has.

If I want a half dozen AR-15s and 10,000 rounds so be it. You don't get to take away my rights just because of something the other guy has done or might do.

Guns are banned from schools already, why didn't the gun free zone stop the killer?

You want to end private ownership of firearms (you do, admit it) then repeal the 2nd amendment and stop infringing upon my unalienable right to keep and bear arms with the utter failure of gun control laws.
 
Shall not be infringed.

The government has automatic rifles, so should its citizens. Who cares what some of you think I, or someone else needs, wants or has.

If I want a half dozen AR-15s and 10,000 rounds so be it. You don't get to take away my rights just because of something the other guy has done or might do.

Guns are banned from schools already, why didn't the gun free zone stop the killer?

You want to end private ownership of firearms (you do, admit it) then repeal the 2nd amendment and stop infringing upon my unalienable right to keep and bear arms with the utter failure of gun control laws.
You might want to read the whole thing. Especially the part that references "militia".
 
Cars kill people, but they also transport people. Fire kills people, but it also warms them. Assault weapons kill people. Give me another purpose.

As for liberty--it is not an absolute. As Holmes said, no one is free to cry fire in a crowded theater.

And I don't buy your argument that armed officers would "secure" our schools. Make them more secure, perhaps.

Do you really believe we are stupid?

First of all, semi-automatic weapons are not assault weapons, but the liberals created this false narrative to win a political battle.

But back to your question...

Semi-automatic weapons also defend innocent citizens from predators, & are much more effective at doing so than any other street legal weapon. You can try to frame your argument to make these weapons seem unnecessary, but your argument is weak, & the statistics prove just how weak your assertions are.
 
Shall not be infringed.

You left out "the security of a free state." For more than two hundred years, individuals lost 2nd Amendment cases and in just about every one of them, the Supreme Court told the individual what he did did nothing to secure a free state. And then the most reactionary Court in history changed more than two hundred years of precedent. It's funny...I don't recall anyone whining about "activist judges" when they did that.

The government has automatic rifles, so should its citizens.

Tunisia had one of the lowest firearm ownership rates in the world (890 TIMES fewer than the US) yet they still were able to overthrow a dictator.

If I want a half dozen AR-15s and 10,000 rounds so be it. You don't get to take away my rights just because of something the other guy has done or might do.

If I want ICBMs with nuclear warheads, so be it. You don't get to take away my rights just because of something the other guy has done or might do.


You'll come back and say it's absurd to compare ICBMs with automatic and semiautomatic weapons. I'll comeback and say it's absurd to compare today's weapons with what was available when the Constitution was written.
 
LOL at all the people calling for better mental health treatment. I'm sure you all supported Obamacare and really hope it leads to universal health care, right?

I know you are being sarcastic, but RIGHT!
 
Where do you draw the line with bans?

No line necessary - just Ban ALL GUNS. This isn't the Wild West. Guns are unnecessary. I'd rather live in a safer place where I can't hunt deer (or only hunt deer with a bow).
 
I weep for the future.

Can't believe there are so many frightened people out there (and on here). What's equally disappointing is the extent to which they want to diminish quality of life for the rest of us in a selfish and misguided attempt to alleviate their paranoia.
 
No line necessary - just Ban ALL GUNS. This isn't the Wild West. Guns are unnecessary. I'd rather live in a safer place where I can't hunt deer (or only hunt deer with a bow).

please tell me my sarcasm meter is on the fritz.
 
Bottom line:

The Supreme Court has already confirmed the second Amendment, & therefore, No more gun laws can be created legitimately.

Sorry gun haters, Semi-automatics are here to stay,, & you better get used to it.
 
Bottom line:

The Supreme Court has already confirmed the second Amendment, & therefore, No more gun laws can be created legitimately.

Sorry gun haters, Semi-automatics are here to stay,, & you better get used to it.

Which case are you referencing, would love to read the opinion.

Sent from my ADR6400L using Tapatalk 2
 
Bottom line:

The Supreme Court has already confirmed the second Amendment, & therefore, No more gun laws can be created legitimately.

Sorry gun haters, Semi-automatics are here to stay,, & you better get used to it.

That's not true. You referring to Moore? Because that's not what Posner wrote.
 
No line necessary - just Ban ALL GUNS. This isn't the Wild West. Guns are unnecessary. I'd rather live in a safer place where I can't hunt deer (or only hunt deer with a bow).


Remember when liquor was banned and everyone turned in their hooch and stopped drinking because it was the law. I bet the same thing happens when all guns are banned.
 
You can kill someone with a shotgun or a dog.
If I'm defending my home, it might happen. But, it's much less likely than if I have an assault rifle. Plus, said rifle is more likely to take down any innocents who might be in my house, or in their beds across the street.
 
Remember when liquor was banned and everyone turned in their hooch and stopped drinking because it was the law. I bet the same thing happens when all guns are banned.

yeah that's a great analogy because Booze and Guns are EXACTLY the same.
 
Not true my friend ... not true at all. I will say up front that Step 1 is, in fact, the banning of all semi-automatic non-hunting rifles (i.e. Bushmaster AK4) and the limitation on clips. However, that is not the total solution ... I agree!! We need a true overhaul of gun registration policies that include an extensive background check as well as waiting period. We need greater regulation on gun show purchases that require that same background check and waiting period. We need scrutiny of individuals with guns to ensure that appropriate and truly secure gun safe are being used before issuing firearms. We need greater neighborhood programs with adequate call-in availability (ala Connecticut) where guns can be removed from irresponsible hands. We need tough nonreporting laws when a gun is stolen. Noone is calling for the "punishment" of responsible and "law abiding" gun owning hunters. And from many of the responses that have been on this board from such individuals they tend to agree.
Now for the rest.
We do need a comprehensive MH program; but one that is tied also into gun ownership. We cannot force the evaluation of indviduals who are in some way questionable relative to their competencies. But we can force the individual seeking guns to seek help for those that may have access to those same guns.
I work and have retired from a school system. I have said before in a previous thread that tears well up when I see the babies I work with everyday. I have read truly oxymoronic "solutions" that teachers and principals should have a gun!!! You can never make a child secure by making them feel insecure with armed guards in every school; you cannot help a child feel security by making an armed fortress out of every school. That is not to say that there does not exist "other" solutions to making schools safe. And schools should always be safe. There is a litany of things that must be done to make our schools safer. That is by first making sure that your Board of education realizes that, Yes, Sandy Hook, Columbine can happen here. Then that is the start of finding the solutions (money not withstanding) of making our schools safe.
America is the most violent country in the world... third world nations not included. We live in a culture of violence We glorify violence. I ask you, outside of the baby movies, what are the #1 movies that our teens and pre-teens watch? Nothing like a good shoot-em-up. And why do these violent movies keep being made? Because they make money from both parents (adults) and children. I don't have to even speak to the viideo game genre. One can't change violent attitudes (its OK to shooot people) without making significant changes in the violent enculturation that is one hallmark of our society. Such an enculturation of violence makes violence "unreal" to impressionable minds. Violence becomes acceptable ... and, by the way, entertaining.
This has become a terribly long diatribe and for those saying, "Phew, when is he going to stop" well, I have only one last thing. I have also read and heard from individuals that say "Violence ainta gonna happen here cause I gotta gun right here on my hip (or keep one in my dresser drawer)". Again oxymoronic thinking. That's like saying we have it solved with "Peaceful violence". We cannot solve the issue of violence in our country with the threat of violence. All you are doing is encouraging the belief that violence is the answer. And our children learn that violence is the only answer to violence. Its circular and such thoughts and attitudes only serve to prolong the attitudes and as I have said the answer of violence to stop violence is oxymoronic and self-defeating. And for those irresponsible individuals whoo proudly proclaim I carry a gun on my hip; I keep a gun in my car; I keep a gun in my dresser next to my bed well I dont need to tell you that a gun is one of the hottest items to buy on the street!!! Keep them locked up.!!! Away from burglars; away from children.
You wanted suggestions other than just banning guns? This is a start.
I thought Michael Smerconish posed a great question on his radio show yesterday. He asked some more-guns-are- THE-answer" guy, "Why is it that the US has 5% of the world's population, but 50% of its guns".
 
yeah that's a great analogy because Booze and Guns are EXACTLY the same.

Missing the point. A ban on all guns would get the law-abiding citizens to turn in their guns but those inclined to ignore laws that they don't like will just keep and hide their guns. Most guns will not be used for crimes but some guns will still find their way into the hands of those who want to use them for mayhem.

Problem not solved.
 
If I'm defending my home, it might happen. But, it's much less likely than if I have an assault rifle. Plus, said rifle is more likely to take down any innocents who might be in my house, or in their beds across the street.

And if you flip out after a major trauma and decide to walk into a preschool with your home protection shotguns and start blasting away you could kill quite a few people.

Or if you decide to loose you pit bull on a group of neighborhood kids because you have become unstable there is the potential for serious damage.
 
I thought Michael Smerconish posed a great question on his radio show yesterday. He asked some more-guns-are- THE-answer" guy, "Why is it that the US has 5% of the world's population, but 50% of its guns".

Probably the same reason the US has 50% of the worlds wealth or uses 50% of the worlds supply of heroine. Because we can.
 

Similar threads

Replies
3
Views
529
Replies
1
Views
489
    • Like
Orangeyes Daily Articles for Wednesday for Basketball
Replies
6
Views
737
    • Like
Orangeyes Daily Articles for Thursday for Basketball
Replies
6
Views
689

Forum statistics

Threads
169,484
Messages
4,833,956
Members
5,979
Latest member
CB277777

Online statistics

Members online
255
Guests online
1,644
Total visitors
1,899


...
Top Bottom