[quote]Berserkergang wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
Actually an IQ test for driving and voting doesn�¢??t sound like a bad idea.
Actually the above statement is stupid and obviously coming from some low IQ mind.
Pol Pot, Mao, Hitler, Stalin, Napoleon, Franco, Dr. Josef Mengele…those mass murderers were all stupid people with low IQ? That student from South Korea who killed 32 people at Virginia Tech university was afflicted with a low IQ? All those drunk people involved in saturday-night car crash are all low-IQ morons?
Unfortunately stupid, irresponsible and dangerous behaviors certainly aren’t the monopoly of people with low IQ. Everyday I witness stupid behaviors and faulty decision making from so called “clever people”…and btw IQ test isn’t a very reliable tool to determine the ability of the individual to make rational and reasonable decision in real life situation.
Where I am living now they have fairly strict registration laws for guns but it hasn’t made for less crime. Registration here effectively means a ban as the police don’t seem to issue new permits or renew old ones. On the other hand, I don’t see the police really looking for guns either.
Tricky part is that there are all sorts of weapons in this country and neighbors with wars and such where you can pick up just about anything you want (although the condition of most firearms on this continent is very poor).
Although it might be nicer if no one had guns it is hard to unring a bell. and I would probably drive a nail through a stick and hit people with that.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
pushharder wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Yet, these same conservatives will, with a straight face, talk of the need to ban abortion.
I wonder if the Bengals will make it to the Super Bowl this year as I think this too has something to do with gun control.
I’m going to quote one of my heroes, Foghorn Leghorn:
“You’re built too low, son, the fast ones go over your head!”
[/quote]
I don’t know if I’ve ever agreed with anything you’ve ever said, but this one made me laugh out loud, literally.
I will have to say, that I fail to see the connection as well.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:If you are going to make that argument, you can apply it to all illegal activities. People are going to murder whether it’s illegal or not. We should just make it all legal.
People are going to steal regardless of law. Lets legalize and regulate theft too. Do you see how that logic doesn’t really apply to certain sectors?[/quote]
Right, but neither of these two are among them. They are both individual rights,
Furthermore, though they are not exactly the same, as you pointed out, theft and other things do have causes other than pure human meanness, and yes you should try to address them. For example, as you know, poverty breeds crime.
[quote]Market forces shouldn’t dictate the legality of human rights no matter what side you are on.
[/quote]
[quote]Loose Tool wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
tom63 wrote:
And what does banning abortion have to do with gun control? Let’s see, me shooting bad guy and protecting the innocent and ending an innocent life. What’s the problem here?
I see you missed the whole point of a ban being ineffective when the demand is there. It just shows that these people don’t care what works or what is logical, just that the things they like are not banned, and the things they don’t are.
“These people”? Whatchew talkin’ 'bout Willis? It’s not about banning things we like or don’t like. Self defense is a basic human right. That’s the beginning and the end of the logical argument.
[/quote]
The right to control your body is a basic right as well. But you don’t like it when women attempt to exercise it in order to do something you don’t like. Period.
Push once again refuses to reach the logical conclusion because it doesn’t allow the outcome he prefers. The right to one’s body, I would hope, is a basic right. It’s more or less the most fundamental right you have. The right to defend yourself is also fundamental, but it doesn’t even require a gun. Banning guns is less a violation of rights than the banning of abortions, yet push and people like him, with Bibles where their brains should be, are supportive of the one and opposed to the other.
Now of course it’s a little silly to say “defend yourself, but you can’t use guns,” HOWEVER, you still could use tasers, stun guns, asps, knives, etc. I don’t know. The point is, there are other ways. But banning abortion is a complete removal of the woman’s right to choose. No way around it. Both rights inevitably involve some casualties. The pro-gunners (of which I am one, but am just much less zealous and/or religious about it) will tell you that shooting deaths are “preventable,” “caused by irresponsible use,” etc. Yet they do happen. Does this stop them from loudly crying out for unrestricted gun ownership? Of course not.
Now my point here was not to start another thread on abortion, but only to illustrate the absurd logical knots that people are willing to tie themselves into to avoid thinking about things.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:If you are going to make that argument, you can apply it to all illegal activities. People are going to murder whether it’s illegal or not. We should just make it all legal.
People are going to steal regardless of law. Lets legalize and regulate theft too. Do you see how that logic doesn’t really apply to certain sectors?
Right, but neither of these two are among them. They are both individual rights,
Furthermore, though they are not exactly the same, as you pointed out, theft and other things do have causes other than pure human meanness, and yes you should try to address them. For example, as you know, poverty breeds crime.
Market forces shouldn’t dictate the legality of human rights no matter what side you are on.
Don’t tell that to the libertarians!
[/quote]
Unfortunately in the case of abortion there are 2 human lives involved. You have to admit it is not a black and white personal rights issue on behalf of the mother.
I’m not sure what your attempt at linking poverty and crime has to do with anything or how libertarians link the free market to human rights.
If you are insinuating we have a social right and duty to collectively combat circumstances (even self inflicted ones) that can lead to bad things, shouldnâ??t we do all we can to prevent circumstances that lead to abortion. We could make promiscuity illegal. Support and promote marriage. Mandate nuclear families. Punish pregnancy out of wedlock. Getting rid of the single mother phenomenon would prevent tons of crime statistically.
No, that’s pretty much all there is to it. If you want to limit the period in which it is legal to obtain an abortion, fine, because the choice is still there, and we are simply minimizing the unfortunate side effects. But otherwise, no, it’s pretty simple.
If you have a lot of crime, you should change the conditions that tend to promote it.
They don’t really, of course, I was just kidding around, because that’s their solution to practically everything.
[quote]If you are insinuating we have a social right and duty to collectively combat circumstances (even self inflicted ones) that can lead to bad things, shouldnâ??t we do all we can to prevent circumstances that lead to abortion.
[/quote]
Good idea! But instead of those nasty things you listed, how about science-based sex ed in public schools? How about easy access to contraception, including the morning-after pill?
[quote]pushharder wrote:Instead you have twisted logic into a pretzel.
Not to get into the abortion debate but “the right to one’s body” is one thing. The right to someone else’s body is another. And therein lies the dichotomy. And that’s one reason why your abortion/gun control argument is not analogous.
I do understand where you tried to push your argument but it very weak. You’d do better with another avenue. I’m not sure which one but this particular one is a sieve.[/quote]
Wrong, wrong, wrong. You cannot acknowledge the fetus’s “rights” without completely denying the mother’s. You’ve demonstrated repeatedly that you have no answer to this problem (because there is none). Of course, your Bible-addled brain will not admit this.
There you go, you have all the pieces (though you won’t put them together). I’m done.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Loose Tool wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
tom63 wrote:
And what does banning abortion have to do with gun control? Let’s see, me shooting bad guy and protecting the innocent and ending an innocent life. What’s the problem here?
I see you missed the whole point of a ban being ineffective when the demand is there. It just shows that these people don’t care what works or what is logical, just that the things they like are not banned, and the things they don’t are.
“These people”? Whatchew talkin’ 'bout Willis? It’s not about banning things we like or don’t like. Self defense is a basic human right. That’s the beginning and the end of the logical argument.
The right to control your body is a basic right as well. But you don’t like it when women attempt to exercise it in order to do something you don’t like. Period.[/quote]
Does the unborn child have a basic right to his/her own body, and right to continue to develop? (inside the womb/outside the womb; we’re all developing) And who speaks for the rights of these unborn children?
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
HOWEVER, you still could use tasers, stun guns, asps, knives, etc. [u]I don’t know[/u].[/quote]
Emphasis mine.
Thank for admitting you don’t know, you should probably stop there. And at the risk of sounding extremely cliche, you won’t catch me bringing a knife – or a taser – to a gunfight.
