• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Another gun control win

JMB1911A1

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 29, 2022
Messages
4,424
Reaction score
3,434
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
Just kidding.

Biden appointed judge in MN rules "under 21" ban on carry permits is unconstitutional. Legal adults age 18 and up can obtain a permit in MN.

 
I understand your frustration but IMO the issue is with the age of consent. Who is considered 'an adult.'

IMO it should be consistent, whatever it is. If you can die for your country you should be able to buy cigarettes and alcohol.

I understand the 'practical' reasoning but should that overrule someone's rights?

Edit: and when it comes to practical reasoning, isnt the consensus that the male brain isnt mature until 25? (approx across the range of individuals of course).
 
I understand your frustration but IMO the issue is with the age of consent. Who is considered 'an adult.'

IMO it should be consistent, whatever it is. If you can die for your country you should be able to buy cigarettes and alcohol.

I understand the 'practical' reasoning but should that overrule someone's rights?

Edit: and when it comes to practical reasoning, isnt the consensus that the male brain isnt mature until 25? (approx across the range of individuals of course).
Either adjust the age for voting, selective service, military service, drinking, and firearm ownership across the board, or you are a advocating for group of second class citizens with all the responsibilities but not all the rights.
 
I understand your frustration but IMO the issue is with the age of consent. Who is considered 'an adult.'

IMO it should be consistent, whatever it is. If you can die for your country you should be able to buy cigarettes and alcohol.

I understand the 'practical' reasoning but should that overrule someone's rights?

Edit: and when it comes to practical reasoning, isnt the consensus that the male brain isnt mature until 25? (approx across the range of individuals of course).

Either adjust the age for voting, selective service, military service, drinking, and firearm ownership across the board, or you are a advocating for group of second class citizens with all the responsibilities but not all the rights.
Totally agree with both you guys. Need to find the sarcasm emoji on this site, LOL.

I personally agree. If we consider 18 years old to be adult, then all rights should start at that age.
 
Either adjust the age for voting, selective service, military service, drinking, and firearm ownership across the board, or you are a advocating for group of second class citizens with all the responsibilities but not all the rights.
Everyone has inherent rights upon their birth, and only lose them when they die. That includes the right to keep and bear arms. As minors the parents/guardians of the children get to determine when their child may exercise their inherent rights and to what extent. When those children reach their majority, however, they may make their own decisions with regard to their inherent rights. The government does not get to make those decisions.
 
Totally agree with both you guys. Need to find the sarcasm emoji on this site, LOL.

I personally agree. If we consider 18 years old to be adult, then all rights should start at that age.
All inherent rights began at birth, by definition.
 
"On December 22, 1984, Bernhard Goetz shot four young Black men on a New York City Subway train in Manhattan after they allegedly tried to rob him. All four of the teenagers survived, although Darrell Cabey was paralyzed and suffered brain damage as a result of his injuries...
According to Canty, he said, "Can I have $5?" According to Goetz, Canty said, "Give me five dollars" in a "normal tone" of voice. Goetz subsequently pulled a handgun and fired five shots at the four, wounding them all. Cabey's spine was severed, resulting in brain damage and partial paralysis." Wiki

Sometimes when I'm asked for spare change I turn around for privacy so that the beggars don't see how much money I have when I'm taking out the coins. Unless you're being pushed or verbally threatened then you can't really say your being robbed. I'm in Spain now and was asked earlier by two tracksuit-wearing teens for 1 euro. I consented but just because they were fitter than me it still doesn't mean they were intimidating. The dilemma is that both the right wing and left wing are obsessed about the economy where they view criminality as a secondary issue. This doesn't make sense when criminality can be far more intoxicating than wealth. For example the hedonism of a serial rapist is almost on a par with a super-rich lifestyle. Poor people who receive charity are less likely to become evil which is sometimes forgotton by right-wingers when criminals are far more extortionate than any high-tax regime. Incidentally I'd a dream last night in which I was retrieving a lost soccer ball when a teenager chased me to the fence. I thought he was going to rob me when instead he handed me an apple watch. It goes to show that youths from any wealth background can look rough!
 
Humility works as a virtue for both good people and bad people. In other words a humble evil person might be a murderous gang member but would never be an arrogant coloniser of another country. Hence humility limits evil by allowing people to define themselves as evil without ever having to prove themselves to be evil. In other words it takes pride for evil people to compete with each other to see who’s the most evil person. By contrast a humble evil person can claim that everyone should be slightly evil without ever going overboard. Likewise guns can be humble in an amoral way by implying that no one ever has to prove how evil they can be relative to an absurdity that any gun-owner can carry out a mass shooting. This can create a lot of self-control where no one has to kill anyone just to show that they’re able to kill people. Yet the version of humility offered by guns mimics extreme hardcore sex where no one has to kill lots of women relative to it already being apparent that men are stronger than women. As such the idea of hoping that mass shootings will plateau as a best case scenario hinges on evil people knowing that anyone could replicate their death tally when everyone owns guns. Moreover any evil person can be shot randomly by a mass shooter where no one has to be evil all the time. Both good and evil people can be victimised by guns. Everyone can find redemption in not being as evil as they could have been relative to others in society. America has pretty dedicated their country to restraining evil sex!

2B843853-8445-4B81-9EA0-6810E98EE19C.jpeg
Jaye Summers
 
AA583125-7D86-4DB3-B74A-006EA48BAD8F.jpeg
My first time seeing a cactus plant in the wild in Gran Canaria. Perhaps a cactus pot at home could be used as a flail or projectile as a form of natural self-defence!
 
All inherent rights began at birth, by definition.

For guns to be a God-given birthright then guns would have to be promoted in a religion. Yet not one major religion celebrates home gun ownership.
 
Americans aren't afraid of long distance snipers during armed robberies because they're not close enough to give demands. Yet robbers can work in pairs with a sniper to provide covering fire to the other robber collecting stolen goods from the victims. A citizen cannot verify a claim that a robber has hidden sniper support which makes victims vulnerable to deception.
 
Truth be told I shouldn't even be warning Americans of the flaws of their gun rights. If I get a flight to America and buy a sniper over there then I could go to any upper class neighbourhood and easily steal a million bucks! Americans could be at grave risk of foreign criminals because short-term tourist visas are very easy to acquire.
 
Last edited:
Truth be told I shouldn't even be warning Americans of the flaws of their gun rights. If I get a flight to America and buy a sniper over there then I could go to any upper class neighbourhood and easily steal a million bucks! Americans could be at grave risk of foreign criminals because short-term tourist visas are very easy to acquire.
Illegal for non-residents to purchase firearms in the United States.

Guess you could buy one from a criminal but you would probably end up with a Hi-Point vice a “sniper” rifle. Maybe there are still some Provos hanging around in Boston?
 
Illegal for non-residents to purchase firearms in the United States.

Guess you could buy one from a criminal but you would probably end up with a Hi-Point vice a “sniper” rifle. Maybe there are still some Provos hanging around in Boston?

What if criminals actually expressed support of gun rights no matter how many robbers are shot? Would that make the NRA think twice about supporting gun ownership?
 
Illegal for non-residents to purchase firearms in the United States.

Guess you could buy one from a criminal but you would probably end up with a Hi-Point vice a “sniper” rifle. Maybe there are still some Provos hanging around in Boston?
Not true. Legal aliens may purchase firearms in the US. The Second Amendment protects the people's right to keep and bear arms, not just US citizens or legal residents.

"An alien legally in the U.S. is not prohibited from purchasing firearms unless the alien is admitted into the U.S. under a nonimmigrant visa and does not meet one of the exceptions as provided in 18 U.S.C. 922y(2), such as possession of a valid hunting license or permit." - BATFE
 
Not true. Legal aliens may purchase firearms in the US. The Second Amendment protects the people's right to keep and bear arms, not just US citizens or legal residents.

"An alien legally in the U.S. is not prohibited from purchasing firearms unless the alien is admitted into the U.S. under a nonimmigrant visa and does not meet one of the exceptions as provided in 18 U.S.C. 922y(2), such as possession of a valid hunting license or permit." - BATFE
Thanks for the clarification. I was thinking just US citizens and resident aliens (green card). My bad.
 
Not true. Legal aliens may purchase firearms in the US. The Second Amendment protects the people's right to keep and bear arms, not just US citizens or legal residents.

Democracy is ethical because amoral people can gravitate to ethics if ethical people are vocal enough to persuade them. Yet if an entire population is on a spectrum of evil then dictatorship isn’t very evil. That is to say evil people aren’t owed a vote. Ethical people don’t have to treat evil people as being equal. Monarchy is a gamble meaning that a virtuous king could theoretically be heroic in restraining an entire evil population. Yet monarchy would only be a lesser evil if the world were so extreme that the risk of genocidal monarchs could be tolerated. Anyway the dilemma with America is that they root for democracy even if they don’t care about the evil of mass shooters being tolerated by voters. Democracy isn’t an absolute concept in the metaphysics of an ethical system. For example as an Irish citizen I don’t care about England’s symbolic monarchy so long as they don’t impose colonialism on other countries.
 
Thanks for the clarification. I was thinking just US citizens and resident aliens (green card). My bad.
In Alaska we get a lot of foreign hunters. Most bring their own firearms, but some do buy them while they are in Alaska. Whether or not they are allowed to bring those firearms home with them after they are done hunting is another story.
 
Democracy is ethical because amoral people can gravitate to ethics if ethical people are vocal enough to persuade them. Yet if an entire population is on a spectrum of evil then dictatorship isn’t very evil. That is to say evil people aren’t owed a vote. Ethical people don’t have to treat evil people as being equal. Monarchy is a gamble meaning that a virtuous king could theoretically be heroic in restraining an entire evil population. Yet monarchy would only be a lesser evil if the world were so extreme that the risk of genocidal monarchs could be tolerated. Anyway the dilemma with America is that they root for democracy even if they don’t care about the evil of mass shooters being tolerated by voters. Democracy isn’t an absolute concept in the metaphysics of an ethical system. For example as an Irish citizen I don’t care about England’s symbolic monarchy so long as they don’t impose colonialism on other countries.
Democracy is ethical only if you are a complete idiot. Even a child can comprehend when you have a democracy with "two wolves and a sheep deciding what is for dinner" it is not a good basis for making decisions. In order to preserve and protect the individual rights of everyone, democracy can never be used. Those who seek to violate the rights of everyone have always found democracy to be a convenient vehicle. So the more you push democracy, the more you make yourself the enemy of individual rights.

This is why the leftist filth push so strongly for a democracy, they hate the concept of individual rights and want to see them all abolished. Only a democracy can achieve this.

A government established to preserve and protect individual rights will never be a democracy. They will only be a republic of some sort, where the people have absolutely no say over the rights of others. Like the US.
 
This is why the leftist filth push so strongly for a democracy, they hate the concept of individual rights and want to see them all abolished. Only a democracy can achieve this.

Violent sex translation: Casual gun-carry can symbolise heteroflexibility in a misogynistic way because anyone can like nude men from a distance without loving them bisexually if they're all viewed as really violent to women. In a gun zone you cannot love a fellow gun-owner knowing that you could be violent to each other's spouses while still being able to admire each other so as not to feel too bad about it in case it ever happens! The irony of heterosexual porn is that it ends up being heteroflexible because the man in background gradually becomes more noticeable on the woman no matter the excuses of focusing on the woman! We forget that a woman who likes men can watch the exact same video the other way round such that porn is holistically bisexual!
 
Last edited:
Violent sex translation: Casual gun-carry can symbolise heteroflexibility in a misogynistic way because anyone can like nude men from a distance without loving them bisexually if they're all viewed as really violent to women. In a gun zone you cannot love a fellow gun-owner knowing that you could be violent to each other's spouses while still being able to admire each other so as not to feel too bad about it in case it ever happens! The irony of heterosexual porn is that it ends up being heteroflexible because the man in background gradually becomes more noticeable on the woman no matter the excuses of focusing on the woman! We forget that a woman who likes men can watch the exact same video the other way round such that porn is holistically bisexual!
IMG_1575.jpeg
 
In Alaska we get a lot of foreign hunters. Most bring their own firearms, but some do buy them while they are in Alaska. Whether or not they are allowed to bring those firearms home with them after they are done hunting is another story.

If everyone in America were viewed as ethical then their reluctance to enforce gun control is so puerile that the victims must work twice as hard to secure policy changes due to public apathy.

“The bystander effect, or bystander apathy, is a social psychological theory that states that individuals are less likely to offer help to a victim in presence of other people. First proposed in 1964 after the murder of Kitty Genovese, much research, mostly in psychology research laboratories, has focused on increasingly varied factors, such as the number of bystanders, ambiguity, group cohesiveness, and diffusion of responsibility that reinforces mutual denial.”



A government established to preserve and protect individual rights will never be a democracy. They will only be a republic of some sort, where the people have absolutely no say over the rights of others. Like the US.

Conflicts like Northern Ireland and Palestine should be shown no respect when self-defence laws were so deficient as to resemble a lowered mental age.

“Mental age is a concept related to intelligence. It looks at how a specific individual, at a specific age, performs intellectually, compared to average intellectual performance for that individual's actual chronological age (i.e. time elapsed since birth).”
 
Democracy is ethical only if you are a complete idiot. Even a child can comprehend when you have a democracy with "two wolves and a sheep deciding what is for dinner" it is not a good basis for making decisions. In order to preserve and protect the individual rights of everyone, democracy can never be used. Those who seek to violate the rights of everyone have always found democracy to be a convenient vehicle. So the more you push democracy, the more you make yourself the enemy of individual rights.

A road checkpoint for gun control manned by citizens doesn’t significantly violate an individual’s rights because they’d only search those who want to pass through. Anyone can turn around if they don’t want to be searched.
 
Last edited:
Returning covering fire during the 2017 Las Vegas mass shooting might not have killed too many hotel residents because a bullet would be stopped after rising through multiple floors. I’m not sure how solid each floor decking was in the hotel but it’s possible that a bullet could pass through one floor after breaking the window underneath. Hence the covering fire needn’t have been too accurate in height to have penetrated Stephen Paddock’s room.


Full Metal Jacket (1987) - The Battle of Hué Scene (7/10) |
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom