Indiana goes constitutional carry

[aociswundumho]

If privately owned guns were illegal, what would be the difference ?

If drugs were legal, it wouldn't be morally wrong to own them would it ?

We've been through this before. What's moral and what's legal are two unrelated things. Slavery was legal and immoral, helping slaves to freedom was illegal and moral. The Holocaust was legal and immoral, helping Jews get free was illegal and moral. There is no connection between morality and the legal rules written by politicians.

So you are wrong, but there is indeed a difference between drugs and guns, because of their addictive nature, no ban can ever be successful as they'll always be a demand
Whereas this is not the case for drugs, and a gun ban will significantly reduce the demand for guns generally (though perhaps not from criminals).



Well if the held on to illegal guns, they wouldn't be law abiding

That's why I inserted "otherwise" into the sentence.

And although gun owners spout BS like you can have my guns when you take them from my cold, dead fingers, or you can have them bullets first. When it come down t it, they'll meekly hand them in

Some would and some wouldn't. The ones that won't will say, "A government that would do something like this cannot be trusted at all" and they would be correct. Remember, there are 80 million gun owners in the US, even if one percent didn't comply, that's still 800,000 gun owners. Remember also that today we have the internet, which facilitates mass communication among millions of people. There's a very good reason leftists like yourself are so hostile to free speech. Any national confiscation scheme would set the entire internet on fire. There would be endless debates and discussions and your side would lose.

Sorry, but I don't see your dream of mass firearm confiscation happening ever.

 

[Rich2018]

We've been through this before. What's moral and what's legal are two unrelated things. Slavery was legal and immoral, helping slaves to freedom was illegal and moral. The Holocaust was legal and immoral, helping Jews get free was illegal and moral. There is no connection between morality and the legal rules written by politicians.

Morality is subjective

Human sacrifice once existed on both sides of the Atlantic - and the civilizations thought they were moral
However to the Romans, human sacrifice was abhorrent and they stamped out Druidism in the West of Britannia. Yet the Romans embraced slavery, and considered themselves moral
Slavery was condoned in the Bible, yet has their ever been such a self righteous book written as the Bible ?

Today most people eat meat and enjoy a nice steak, but perhaps 1,000 years from now, our descendants will look upon us, raising animals to wear their skins and eat their flesh, as highly immoral.

That's why I inserted "otherwise" into the sentence.

They still wouldn't be law abiding.

Some would and some wouldn't. The ones that won't will say, "A government that would do something like this cannot be trusted at all" and they would be correct. Remember, there are 80 million gun owners in the US, even if one percent didn't comply, that's still 800,000 gun owners.

And if 0.1% do, that's just 80,000, and if 0.01% do, that's just 8,000
And remember, not all guns would be made illegal, so a good percentage of gun owners would be unaffected, others would simply swap out their guns for legal ones.

Remember also that today we have the internet, which facilitates mass communication among millions of people. There's a very good reason leftists like yourself are so hostile to free speech. Any national confiscation scheme would set the entire internet on fire. There would be endless debates and discussions and your side would lose.

The internet is a good thing - it's helping ordinary Russians see what their country is doing in the Ukraine for example
Right wing governments like that of Putin are trying to block it.

Donald Trump had issues with FB and YouTube (before they banned him, because he didn't like what was being said about him there)
The internet and the smart phone are great tools for those of us on the left. We can expose the lies of RW politicians like Trump and Putin, as well as call rogue cops like Derek Chauvin to account
There are quite a few convictions that were based on cell phone video. Cops like Chauvin might have got away with it 20-25 years ago

So three cheers for freedom and the internet.

Sorry, but I don't see your dream of mass firearm confiscation happening ever.

Well you don't sound very sorry.

 

[aociswundumho]

Morality is subjective

"Enslaving black people is morally wrong" is not true if morality is subjective.

Do you agree that enslaving black people could, depending on the context, be morally correct?

A simple yes or no will suffice.

Right wing governments like that of Putin are trying to block it.

Putin is "right wing"? Is this the same Putin who was a KGB officer for 16 years, and wants to bring back the old USSR?

Do you consider Stalin and Lenin to be "right wing" as well?

The internet and the smart phone are great tools for those of us on the left.

Then why is the political left so hostile to free speech?

Well you don't sound very sorry.

Congrats, you finally got something right.

 

[RF667799]

"Enslaving black people is morally wrong" is not true if morality is subjective.

Do you agree that enslaving black people could, depending on the context, be morally correct?

A simple yes or no will suffice.



Putin is "right wing"? Is this the same Putin who was a KGB officer for 16 years, and wants to bring back the old USSR?

Do you consider Stalin and Lenin to be "right wing" as well?



Then why is the political left so hostile to free speech?



Congrats, you finally got something right.

Remember, this is the guy who- concerning Americans of Japanese ethnicity-wrote:

Sure

The internment you speak of was in wartime and was seen as a necessity
The British government did something similar with people whose loyalty could not be trusted

It's typical of you bleeding heart conservatives to insist people be allowed total freedom until they prove they cannot be trusted
Just why are you afraid of being pro-active

If one of those Japanese-Americans had committed an act of espionage, the damage would be done before your acted.

Pass.

Morality is not so much subjective, as subject to the utilitarian calculations of the state.

 

[Rich2018]

"Enslaving black people is morally wrong" is not true if morality is subjective.

So enslaving people of the same ethnicity as yourself is OK ?

Do you agree that enslaving black people could, depending on the context, be morally correct?
A simple yes or no will suffice.

Enslaving people from ANY ethnic group, is morally wrong
But 2,000 years ago, it was not seen so

And what's more, no less a holy scripture than the Bible condoned it.

Putin is "right wing"? Is this the same Putin who was a KGB officer for 16 years, and wants to bring back the old USSR?

Absolutely he is
Extreme right wing, and it's not the old USSR he wants to re-create, he and all Russia's billionaire oligarchs, reject communism and embrace capitalism wouldn't you say ?
Think more like Imperial Russia under the Tsars. Have you not read his comments about the Ukraine being historically Russian ?

The fascist philosopher behind Vladimir Putin’s information warfare:

Do you consider Stalin and Lenin to be "right wing" as well?

Stalin was definitely right wing - he was hardly pro-democracy was he ?
I am reminded by a poster on here who once called Stalin and Hitler "liberals". His rational was that liberals are bad, they were bad, therefore they must have been liberals!

I don't think you really understand the difference between right and left wing.

Then why is the political left so hostile to free speech?

They're not

The political right is far more interested in stifling political opposition - just look at Russia and the news channels closed down. You can get 15 years in jail for just saying what's going on in the Ukraine is a war, and not a "special military operation".

Congrats, you finally got something right.

So you were lying ?
How am I not surprised ?

 

[Linuxcooldude]

Morality is subjective

Only when talking a narratives in politics, like abortion among liberals.

 

[aociswundumho]

So enslaving people of the same ethnicity as yourself is OK ?

Enslaving people from ANY ethnic group, is morally wrong

You claimed morality is subjective. If that's true, then white people enslaving black people could be morally correct some context, agreed?

 

[Linuxcooldude]

You claimed morality is subjective. If that's true, then white people enslaving black people could be morally correct some context, agreed?

Like Rich said, it was morally right for people back then.

 

[zsu2357]

Irrelevant

Gun lovers often claim that the average cop opposes gun control - that might not be correct

And you don't like that idea.

I got just one word EVIDENCE and not what police chiefs say or other appointed officials say because they are used to their lifestyle. And your word on it isn't enough either.

 

[Rich2018]

Only when talking a narratives in politics, like abortion among liberals.

No, when talking about morality period.

Example: Do you think it's moral for the state to kill people as punishment ?

Parts of the USA does, most countries in the developed world do not.

 

[Rich2018]

I got just one word EVIDENCE and not what police chiefs say or other appointed officials say because they are used to their lifestyle. And your word on it isn't enough either.

Like I said, you don't like the idea

Gun lovers often claim that the average cop opposes gun control - and that might not be correct.

 

[Rich2018]

You claimed morality is subjective. If that's true, then white people enslaving black people could be morally correct some context, agreed?

I don't think it can be, but that extends to people of any color, enslaving people of any color.

And to reiterate; condemning slavery as immoral is a modern day sentiment, that wasn't the case 2,000 years ago.

 

[RF667799]

I don't think it can be, but that extends to people of any color, enslaving people of any color.

And to reiterate; condemning slavery as immoral is a modern day sentiment, that wasn't the case 2,000 years ago.

Changing morality is only a function of time? What explains your advocacy of ethnically populated concentration camps?

 

[Linuxcooldude]

Example: Do you think it's moral for the state to kill people as punishment

Yes, If the criminals are likely to kill agian, such as a serial killer.
It's not just about punishment, but the safty of the general public.

 

[Rich2018]

Yes, If the criminals are likely to kill agian, such as a serial killer.

Serial killers get LWOP or death already

I was talking about those convicted of violent crimes who do not typically receive life sentences (or death).
Like rapists, people convicted of manslaughter, attempted murder, aggravated assault, aggravated burglary, home invasion...

Not everyone convicted of murder serves a whole life sentence, many just serve long terms like 50 years. I assume you mean anyone convicted of murder stays in jail until they die
You know that will reduce the conviction rate ?

It's not just about punishment, but the safty of the general public.

One of the justifications of a custodial sentences is to protect the public
So if say a 90 year old, convicted of murder, 70 years ago, presents no threat, should he be released ?

 

[RF667799]

Serial killers get LWOP or death already

I was talking about those convicted of violent crimes who do not typically receive life sentences (or death).
Like rapists, people convicted of manslaughter, attempted murder, aggravated assault, aggravated burglary, home invasion...

Not everyone convicted of murder serves a whole life sentence, many just serve long terms like 50 years. I assume you mean anyone convicted of murder stays in jail until they die
You know that will reduce the conviction rate ?



One of the justifications of a custodial sentences is to protect the public
So if say a 90 year old, convicted of murder, 70 years ago, presents no threat, should he be released ?

Your other arguments encompass the idea that virtually everyone is a threat. So it's rather stupid for you to hypothesize a convicted murderer being released because he isn't a threat.

Rich vs Rich