Gun ownership poll

AustinMike · #1 06-03-2022, 07:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by G1911

This illogical and absurd argument can be made for pro-choice too. A pro-choice person supports some right to get an aboriton. They do not believe literally everyone for any reason in all issues can make any choice. They still believe in some rule of law. A pro-choice person does not support a right for me to do anything at any time for any reason.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AustinMike

Fair point.

After thinking about it, I realize I was wrong. I shouldn't have said "Fair point."

Believing in having choices and rule of law do not contradict each other. Since you like to point these things out, let me point out to you that that's a false equivalency. You can believe in freedom of choice and rule of law.

I believe everyone should have any choice for any situation.

That doesn't mean there can't be adverse consequences for certain choices/decisions. Some choices/decisions can result in the restrictions of future choices, i.e., prison.

But you do have me curious. What choice do you think nobody should have, i.e., what choice do you want to take away from everybody?

G1911 · #2 06-03-2022, 10:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AustinMike

After thinking about it, I realize I was wrong. I shouldn't have said "Fair point."

Believing in having choices and rule of law do not contradict each other. Since you like to point these things out, let me point out to you that that's a false equivalency. You can believe in freedom of choice and rule of law.

I believe everyone should have any choice for any situation.

That doesn't mean there can't be adverse consequences for certain choices/decisions. Some choices/decisions can result in the restrictions of future choices, i.e., prison.

But you do have me curious. What choice do you think nobody should have, i.e., what choice do you want to take away from everybody?

You cannot believe in an absolutist, hardline with no exceptions �right to choose� and any meaningful rule of law. Law is intended to constrict and punish certain choices people make, that is the purpose of every law. You clearly know this, as you even specify prison as a result of unlimited free choice.

A choice I would like not to be legal is slaughtering a roomful of children.

You know damn well, no matter how stupid you pretend to be, that pro-choice and pro-life are both positive sounding brandings for differing positions in abortion, not absolutist universal philosophies. Neither makes any rational sense as an absolutist universal philosophy. You can throw a tantrum as much as you want, but every single person here is aware of this. This is an extreme and idiotic hill to plant your flag on.

AustinMike · #3 06-03-2022, 01:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by G1911

You cannot believe in an absolutist, hardline with no exceptions �right to choose� and any meaningful rule of law. Law is intended to constrict and punish certain choices people make, that is the purpose of every law. You clearly know this, as you even specify prison as a result of unlimited free choice.

Wow, where to begin? If someone cuts me off in traffic, I have choices of how I want to respond. I can (a) ignore it, (b) flip the person off, (c) kill the person. I have the right to select my response from any of the 3 choices I listed and probably several other choices. If I freely choose (c), then, I will rightfully be punished. I will be punished because it is against the law to act on (c). Do you not see how the right to choose is not dependent upon the rule of law? There are laws that prevent felons from owning guns. Does that take the felons choice away? NO. They can still choose to get a gun. But if they make that choice they risk going to jail. Making a law does not take away a person's choices, there is no correlation between a "law" and a "choice."

Quote:

Originally Posted by G1911

A choice I would like not to be legal is slaughtering a roomful of children.

It appears your wish has been granted. It is currently illegal to slaughter a roomful of children. Actually, it has been for a long time. Unfortunately, some sick people choose to ignore the law.

So, let's get back to my original question. What choice(s)s do you think people should not have? And a follow-up question, how do you propose to take that choice away from people?

Quote:

Originally Posted by G1911

You know damn well, no matter how stupid you pretend to be, that pro-choice and pro-life are both positive sounding brandings for differing positions in abortion, not absolutist universal philosophies. Neither makes any rational sense as an absolutist universal philosophy. You can throw a tantrum as much as you want, but every single person here is aware of this. This is an extreme and idiotic hill to plant your flag on.

Are you sure I'm pretending?

As I've pointed out, "pro-life" really isn't. And the problem with "pro-choice" is that when Roe gets overturned, the choice will still be there. But it will be illegal and the person performing the abortion and the woman would be in legal jeopardy. Plus the fact that the woman would be risking her life if she picked the wrong person to do the abortion. But, the choice is still there.

G1911 · #4 06-03-2022, 03:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AustinMike

Wow, where to begin? If someone cuts me off in traffic, I have choices of how I want to respond. I can (a) ignore it, (b) flip the person off, (c) kill the person. I have the right to select my response from any of the 3 choices I listed and probably several other choices. If I freely choose (c), then, I will rightfully be punished. I will be punished because it is against the law to act on (c). Do you not see how the right to choose is not dependent upon the rule of law? There are laws that prevent felons from owning guns. Does that take the felons choice away? NO. They can still choose to get a gun. But if they make that choice they risk going to jail. Making a law does not take away a person's choices, there is no correlation between a "law" and a "choice."

Okay. So everywhere in the world there is the right to have an abortion and always will be. It's just the law punishing people for their free 'choice'. What's the point of discussing abortion at all if you think there is a universalist right to it is already present?

Quote:

Originally Posted by AustinMike

It appears your wish has been granted. It is currently illegal to slaughter a roomful of children. Actually, it has been for a long time. Unfortunately, some sick people choose to ignore the law.

So, let's get back to my original question. What choice(s)s do you think people should not have? And a follow-up question, how do you propose to take that choice away from people?

What choices do I think people should not have? - Already answered. I think you are picking your words wrong again. I am not in favor of rolling back rights. I am generally in favor of expanding them, as I have written several times. I generally believe things with a clear and identifiable victim should be illegal, and everything else legal, whether or not I agree with it. I do not agree with using drugs, but if my neighbor wants to smoke a joint that's not my business. I don't think my neighbor has the right to hurt people though.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AustinMike

Are you sure I'm pretending?

As I've pointed out, "pro-life" really isn't. And the problem with "pro-choice" is that when Roe gets overturned, the choice will still be there. But it will be illegal and the person performing the abortion and the woman would be in legal jeopardy. Plus the fact that the woman would be risking her life if she picked the wrong person to do the abortion. But, the choice is still there.

At this point, I'm less positive my faith that people can read the dictionary and be generally aware of the world around them and apply some common sense may be slightly off base in this particular case.

We have already addressed what pro-choice and pro-life actually means, about 50 times. You and BobC are the only ones evidently incapable of understanding that words have meanings, that are not picked on the whims of any single individual.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
WTB Comiskey (ownership years card) for evolving HOF set.	Misunderestimated	Pre-WWII cards (E, D, M, etc..) B/S/T	1	01-02-2020 08:50 PM
One more way to ruin the hobby - fractional ownership	Throttlesteer	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	49	08-14-2019 02:19 PM
Help determining ownership status of several high profile items	Sean1125	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	5	08-29-2015 10:42 AM
Ownership of old photographs	theantiquetiger	Net54baseball Sports (Primarily) Vintage Memorabilia Forum incl. Game Used	5	08-17-2011 02:43 PM
Scan Ownership	Archive	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	3	12-14-2005 01:10 PM