Every intelligent person knows you need sensible, reasonable regulation

[Nuclear Unicorn]

If you want one you should register that fact with local law enforcement where they are allowed to weigh the merits of your request and "may issue" a permit if they feel you have solid reasons.

You should also undergo training to make sure you understand the law and what is required and what the reasonable limits are.

There should be capacity limits. Too much is just that: too much.

The number of venues should be limited and even those need to be closely monitored and regulated.

And no more loopholes. The government needs to be involved because safety is the key.

It's for your own good.

The mindless proliferation needs to stop.

The political lobbyists supporting the unreasonable proliferation need to be hounded into silence.


After all that *then* maybe you can choose to exercise your right to an abortion. Nobody is an "abortion-grabber" that's just spin, we just want responsible, reasonable control.


All intelligent people know this.

[ileus]

1. Only you can prevent forum fires.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

5. Not when you're this hawt!

:P

[TygrBright]

2. Absolutely. The number of people having abortions and accidentally killing 3-4 bystanders...

...because they don't understand how to have them properly or reasonably is a DISGRACE! A DISGRACE, I tell you!

ironically,
Bright

[petronius]

3. Abortion-grabbers would say that every one of them kills a bystander

So yeah, that was kind of ironic...

And I like where this thread is going! :popcorn:

[Glassunion]

11. +1

gave me a chuckle...

[Nuclear Unicorn]

4. So you're taking the pro-life rationale?

I'm told I should not be allowed to govern my own body because another life is at risk.

There are 40 to 55 million gun-owning households. What percentage of them result in 3 to 4 (or even 1) innocent bystanders being killed?

[TygrBright]

9. No, no! I'm AGREEING with you! Really!

Because we have way too many tragedies when kids get hold of their parents' abortions and accidentally kill their siblings. And when youngsters get hold of unregulated abortions and blow half a dozen schoolmates away. It's TERRIBLE.

We need to do something about it, you're right!

amiably,
Bright

[Nuclear Unicorn]

10. So, if I'm following your principles -

You're in favor of parental notifcation laws and reproductive services for adolescents should be heavily regulated and restricted.

[iverglas]

13. snork

That's a good snork.

[rl6214]

17. What exactly is a "snork"?

[AtheistCrusader]

18. Onomatopoeia.

[iverglas]

25. snork

Yes, the good kind.

[AtheistCrusader]

33. Just trying to be helpful.

:)

[The Doctor.]

23. One of these;

Not sure what little cartoon sea-creatures have to do with this thread though.

[iverglas]

26. invisible sea creatures!

viewed the source ... will this work ... ?



Nope, but it worked when I went to the link; reconstitute:

http: //i6.photobucket.com/albums/y248/koshira/Snorks.gif

Never been introduced, myself!

[iverglas]

27. now that wasn't so hard

first up from google

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=snork

1. Verb: to drink something and have it come out your nose because you're laughing so hard.

2. to unintentionally snort loudly while laughing. Also used as an exclamation after someone snorks, to emphasize the fact and increase their embarrassment.

3. The early 80's underwater equivalent to the smurfs. Just like the smurfs, most any word can be replaced with the word snork.

Ah.

And here we go:

4. A word occasionally used on forums in reply to a very funny post, it is sort of like posting "LOL" or similar. (but cooler)


No, I did not just add that. ;)

[Tuesday Afternoon]

70. something a snerd does.

[iverglas]

77. snork

http://www.zazzle.ca/snerd_n_a_sexy_nerd_tshirt-235711376318074199

The pic link won't work, but the Tshirt says:

snerd: (n) a sexy nerd

How true!

The co-vivant actually calls me a dork, but OKCupid says I'm pure nerd:

the nerd, geek or dork test

Also a true English nerd; a sex nerd; personality: nerd; seduction style: nerdy ...

I need me a Tshirt.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

79. yeah

I always test out as a nerd, too. Got dork a lot in my youth.

so yeah, snerd works.

I have to give you your props. I very rarely agree with you in this forum but, your intelligence on the subject matter can not be denied.

[iverglas]

80. there's a tshirt for that too

a proper dork could probably even get a picture to post ...


?v=1156743150000

[Tuesday Afternoon]

81. Major Dork at your service

[slackmaster]

6. Ah

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

14. ROFL... that has to be photoshopped.

:rofl: :rofl:

[Nuclear Unicorn]

38. My new desktop

[The Doctor.]

7. Let's see;

"Register with law enforcement"

- Agree and disagree. (Un)Concealed carry; yes. In home rifles/shotguns/sidearms, not so much. What I carry around in public is of public concern one way or another. What I keep in my home is not.

"Training"

- Ab-so-fucking-lutely. Even people and children that may never intend to use a firearm should have all the basic safety training. Including how to disarm a gun.

"Capacity limits"

- No. Limits in this case are arbitrary and limit a number of purposes that are perfectly innocuous but may be important to the individual. When a real case can be made for such limitations without having to resort to improbable hypothetical situations, then I may get on board.

"The number of venues should be limited, regulated, and monitored."

- What does this mean? Which venues? What venues? Limited how? Regulated how? Little vague there.

"No more loopholes"

- Which 'loopholes'? What isn't closed right now?

"It's for your own good."

- Huh? How do we know what's 'for our own good' if we don't know what you consider necessary, or what you consider necessary keeps decent people from obtaining a gun? What if they need it, but the 'sensible regulation' you want prevents them from getting it?

"The mindless proliferation needs to stop."

- Sure. Describe "mindless proliferation"


"After all that *then* maybe you can choose to exercise your right to an abortion. Nobody is an "abortion-grabber" that's just spin, we just want responsible, reasonable control."



Uhhh.... yeahhhh. Ok.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

8. I'm just repeating what I'm told.

:P

[The Doctor.]

20. I just walked right into it, didn't I?

Props on the impressive impression. ;)

[Nuclear Unicorn]

36. 's all good

:toast:

[Tuesday Afternoon]

82. +1

[iverglas]

12. actually, what intelligent people know

is that you need EFFECTIVE regulation.

And decent people agree.


But hey, don't let me interrupt another good let's exploit someone else's victimization to exalt our own self-interest fest.

If you come up with any justification for interfering in women's exercise of reproductive rights, maybe somebody will let me know. I've been waiting some 15 years -- on the internet, that is -- and nobody's bothered to, yet.

If you want justification for effective firearms control, there are 10 years' worth of posts in this forum. Happy reading.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

15. I know the gun control arguments. They used to be my arguments

Then I woke up to the fact people have the right to defend themselves and the actions of bad-actors don't diminish the rights of good and decent people. In fact, many of those bad-actors make preserving the rights of good and decent people all the more important.

Some people abuse free speech but that doesn't diminish my right to speak freely.

Ironically, many good progressives work very hard to defend my reproductive rights were I ever to be the victim of rape; yet, they fail to recognize my right to resist that rapist in the first place.

"let's exploit someone else's victimization to exalt our own self-interest" ...I assume you're referring to all those stories of crimes and accidents related to firearms. Sadly, you ignore the people who just want to live their lives in peace but used firearms to defend themselves. That sword cuts both ways -- unless you're also an advocate of reasonable and responsible sword control.

[iverglas]

16. I'll bet they did

"let's exploit someone else's victimization to exalt our own self-interest"
...I assume you're referring to all those stories of crimes and accidents related to firearms.

Do you then? And what interest of mine is served there?

The one where I prefer not to have kids and other people gunned down on the streets of my cities?

Damn me for a selfish hog.

Ironically, many good progressives work very hard to defend my reproductive rights were I ever to be the victim of rape; yet, they fail to recognize my right to resist that rapist in the first place.

There's no irony in a false statement, pet.


Some people abuse free speech but that doesn't diminish my right to speak freely.

Jeez I wish you people would learn to talk sense.

How do I abuse a right, if I'm of a mind to? Beat it senseless? Kinda the way you're beating the language here?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

31. First things first: I'm not your pet. I'm my own woman and 1 man's wife and happily so.

I prefer not to have kids and other people gunned down on the streets of my cities

You are putting out a false dichotomy. To be pro-gun rights is not the same as condoning reckless and/or criminal behavior.

I have the same preference. That's why I would advocate for strong education and personal responsibility. Just as I would educate my children, if I had any, to be responsible about sex, how to avoid STDs and unwanted pregnancies and what their rights were.

However, I also have a desire that innocent business owners, would-be rape and domestic violence victims and all the others that successfully and lawfully defend themselves with firearms not be deprived of their right to do so.

It is possible to have gun ownership that is coupled with safe, responsible behavior. If we can build a culture that abhors and shuns drunk driving we can build a culture that values safe firearms ownership.

However, it is impossible to ban and control firearms and not surrender law-abiding citizens to the predators around them.

There's no irony in a false statement

What false statement? That those advocating gun control would leave good people defenseless?

Oh, I'm sure you would grant me the right to kick and scream but at 5' 3" there aren't many men I could physically fight off. Pepper spray? Laughable. My husband once showed my video of army MPs being sprayed and then made to carry on their training. A knife? A single-shot Taser?

Please explain how you expect someone who wears a Size 2 dress to fend-off an average sized or larger male.

How do I abuse a right, if I'm of a mind to? Beat it senseless? Kinda the way you're beating the language here?

Nobody accused you of abusing free speech. Try to be less self-centered. You may be obtuse, annoying, condescending, seemingly irrational and borderline sexist but no one in this thread has claimed you abused your right to free speech.

[iverglas]

40. I don't actually care who you are

prefer not to have kids and other people gunned down on the streets of my cities
You are putting out a false dichotomy.

I was doing no such thing. But ...

To be pro-gun rights is not the same as condoning reckless and/or criminal behavior.

... there you are pretending I was doing two things I wasn't doing, all in one paragraph. Yay you.

Maybe you'd do me the courtesy of speaking in intelligible words when you address me. "Pro-gun rights" is word salad.

Opponents of effective firearms control in the US, who agitate/vote against effective firearms control, do indeed bear a share of the responsibility for people being gunned down on the streets of my cities.

Because the measures they agitate/vote against -- things like requiring background checks for sales at at gun shows, just for very starters, obviously coupled with several other approaches -- are precisely what could keep guns out of the hands of very unpleasant criminals in my cities, with which children and other people are killed (and robberies are committed, and like that).

So I don't give a flying fuck what they or you condone or don't condone. It's actions that interest me.


That's why I would advocate for strong education and personal responsibility.

Bully for you. Really. Bully bully for you. Why would I care? Why would anybody care? Is somebody bound to do what the education tells them, or what you tell them? Not so's I've noticed. Are you somebody really important and powerful and I just haven't realized it yet? What kind of power would it take for somebody who decides to "advocate for personal responsibility" to stop everybody from doing bad shit with guns?

Do you have that power? Does anybody? I didn't think so.

So why are you boring me with this?


However, I also have a desire that innocent business owners, would-be rape and domestic violence victims and all the others that successfully and lawfully defend themselves with firearms not be deprived of their right to do so.

Yeah, I know you say you're a woman, and far be it from me to say nay to that. Maybe I'll tell you I'm the Queen of Roumania. I could probably tell you more about Roumania than you seem to be able to tell me about women's lives.

Let's just say that if I hadn't seen a woman write the ugly crap about women that you wrote in your OP, I wouldn't have believed it.


It is possible to have gun ownership that is coupled with safe, responsible behavior. If we can build a culture that abhors and shuns drunk driving we can build a culture that values safe firearms ownership.

Yes, and it is undoubtedly possible to have a land of milk and honey. In the meantime, people are starving. And while we wait for your utopia on earth, people and communities and societies are being harmed with firearms. Are you having any luck ridding them of unsafe, irresponsible behaviour? It seems not. But let's just make sure they have as many guns as they want while they're at it.

What is this crap about safe, responsible behaviour? Do we ordinarily use the adjectives "unsafe" or "irresponsible" to describe killing somebody, robbing somebody, threatening or intimidating somebody?

What bizarre nonsense.

However, it is impossible to ban and control firearms and not surrender law-abiding citizens to the predators around them.

Ah, the one time gun control advocate has just memorized the script hook, line and sinker, hasn't she? "Law-abiding citizens." "Predators". Brightly feathered tropical avian beings come to mind.

What is impossible is to have a developed society with guns of every nature available to every single person who wants them. That's what is impossible. And that's what you've got: an underdeveloped society awash in guns.

And, of course, a bunch of people pitching little fits in every forum offered to them in that society about their "rights", thus creating a clever diversion from all the other causes of underdevelopment at the same time. Your job disappeared? Your house disappeared? The drug dealers have taken over your neighbourhood? Look over there! The bogeyman is trying to take your gun!


What false statement? That those advocating gun control would leave good people defenseless?

How about the one I quoted for you in the post you are replying to? --

Ironically, many good progressives work very hard to defend my reproductive rights were I ever to be the victim of rape; yet, they fail to recognize my right to resist that rapist in the first place.

I don't fail to recognize any such thing.

Want to try again?

Let me offer you an analogy. I recognize your right to speak freely. I do not agree that you must be allowed to advertise snake oil as a cure for cancer. Do you disagree? Let me know.

And it still beats me why you're so all-fired concerned about rape! rape! rape! and not even mentioning how you might want to be able to protect yourself against getting killed. Or robbed. Or beaten up.


Please explain how you expect someone who wears a Size 2 dress to fend-off an average sized or larger male.

Well, you might try being some sort of normal size. Your choice, I guess, but you asked.

Have you had a lot of need to fend off these males? I assume you're talking about male human beings, normally called men.

Do you think that most men are stupid? If some nasty big stranger took it into his head to rape!!1! you, would he not maybe try to catch you by surprise?

You're aware that the vast majority of sexual assaults against women are committed by people they know, of course. I mean, you being a member in good standing of the women club, I assume you know things like that. Fathers, husbands, present and former intimate partners, other male relations, co-workers, employers, friends, dates ... you know these things. Do I understand that if a man you worked with or were out for dinner with attempted to sexually assault you, you would shoot him? You're a rare bird if so, you are.

But you do not speak for anyone else, and none of your fancy talk is ever going to result in women strapping guns around their middle when they go to work or go out on a date just in case things turn bad, and then killing the person they are with. Ain't gonna happen.

So what are we left with?

You, speaking for yourself only, thinking you ought to be able to wander abroad with a gun just because you happen to feel like it. Basically.


Nobody accused you of abusing free speech. Try to be less self-centered.

I didn't say you did. Try to read what's on the monitor in front of you. You copied and pasted it; did you not read it at all? Here:

How do I abuse a right, if I'm of a mind to? Beat it senseless?

"Abuse a right" is the most utter and complete nonsense talk. But it was in the manual, I guess.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

46. You try too hard to be clever and witty.

"Abuse a right" is the most utter and complete nonsense talk.

If rights cannot be abused, as you seem to assert (your efforts at cleverness tend to obscure your meaning) then how can you argue gun ownership is an abuse of the right to self-defense?

[iverglas]

48. lord jesus

how can you argue gun ownership is an abuse of the right to self-defense?

How can you sit there in your size 2 dress and type such complete falsehoods?

The idea that I could come up with such utter nonsense even if I tried ... and yet here you are just saying, with no further ado, that I have said something no minimally intelligent person would ever say. And something you have no basis for saying and no right, in the world of civil discourse, to say.

You're getting to be completely beyond belief for more than one reason.

To whom, exactly, do you think you are speaking?

A really really stupid person?

Think again, if it doesn't hurt too much.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

50. OK, so gun ownership IS within the rights of self-defense. I'm glad we can agree.

To whom, exactly, do you think you are speaking?

A really really stupid person?

The girl in the Size 2 dress will just have to be the bigger man.

[iverglas]

52. buh bye, honeybunch

Your act may go down a treat in some quarters, but the amusement value of toying with someone who either is that dumb, or is that dishonest -- or who is bent on playing someone that dumb or dishonest -- wanes quickly.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

53. "Pet" "Honeybunch"

Drat, I'm being ignored by a sexist.

[iverglas]

54. oh dear, you didn't want your incessant references

to your sex and your dress size to get noticed?

Huh, eh?

Since you hadn't bothered to come up with any actual reasonable, minimally respectful speech -- minimally respectful is where you don't actually make shit up and pretend the person you are talking to said it -- I figured this was what you were after.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

56. Ah, I showed off the goods so I must have been asking for it

Maybe that was you in the sexual predator thread.

[iverglas]

58. you refused to engage in any discourse and instead told us your dress size

Nuclear Unicorn Donating Member
Thu Aug-25-11 07:43 PM
Response to Reply #54
56. Ah, I showed off the goods so I must have been asking for it
Maybe that was you in the sexual predator thread.

Just for posterity, just because it is so ugly it deserves memorializing.

I have no idea what "the sexual predator thread" is. I do know something you don't appear to have bothered figuring out or paying attention to, though.

Have you ever been abducted and raped and had somebody try to kill you?

I'm assuming not, since you have not mentioned it and you don't actually seem to have the first clue when it comes to women's experiences ofsexual violence.

Well meet someone who has. And consider just what kind of person you look like now.

[Name removed]

60. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Glassunion]

55. Some folks just can't use

neighborly tact; or remain cordial during a conversation.

1. Insult the intelligence of the speaker
2. Pronounce yourself lord or lady of all you survey.
3. ?????
4. Profit

[Name removed]

57. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iverglas]

59. yeah, I figured you had made one of those, uh, sexist assumptions

Time to wipe that dripping yellow stuff off your face, which, if I were you, I wouldn't be wantnig to show in public for a while.

Once again, just for posterity:

"remain cordial"?
Posted by Nuclear Unicorn

I've yet to see him make a cordial or coherent statement to any person in any thread.

He gets as snide as possible then complains about a lack of civility when people use his inferences against him. In all seriousness, I don't think he's rational. His is a very disordered persona. Lots of projection as well.

We should be grateful he's disarmed.

Anything I said about that would be overkill.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

61. I've since been informed you're a female

But you are certainly no lady.

Apart from that you earned every word I typed and a whole lot more.

You're rude, condescending and aggressive. You hide behind smarmy comments then when people take the plain inference from what you say you retreat from it as if it was the last thing you ever meant. Efforts to request clarification about what you say are met with dismissal. Direct questions are ignored or mocked. You bring nothing to the conversation except to label what you cannot refute as a "right-wing meme." If I make a reference to my dress size every one else seems to understand perfectly well that I'm only using an example that I am small in stature with no connotation as to my sexuality; except you who see nothing else. Yet, how much of the internet have you wasted in these threads complaining you have been misunderstood.

Your act is not new. It is the hallmark of a petty and hostile mind. I'd be more than happy to carry on a civil discourse with anyone, even those I disagree with. Not so long ago I almost chased away the most important person in my life being as you are today. I decided to be better. And I'm happier by not being so hostile.

Who knew?!

I don't put people on ignore. And I won't put you on ignore. If you ever feel like having a civil conversation let me know.

[iverglas]

62. actually, I'm neither a female nor a lady

Not belonging to a non-human species, and not having any desire to conform to a demeaning and oppressive stereotype or be treated like one.

I'm a woman, and it's no surprise that the word galls you.

Have you considered reading the rules of this website? Just a friendly suggestion.

If you ever wish to make "efforts to request clarification" or ask "direct qustions" or do anything at all other than spew memes and memorized slogans and self-glorifying claptrap, you can feel free to do it.

Your own act might serve you well in real life; I wouldn't know. It does neither you nor anyone else any service here.


Again, for posterity:

I've since been informed you're a female
Posted by Nuclear Unicorn

But you are certainly no lady.

Apart from that you earned every word I typed and a whole lot more.

You're rude, condescending and aggressive. You hide behind smarmy comments then when people take the plain inference from what you say you retreat from it as if it was the last thing you ever meant. Efforts to request clarification about what you say are met with dismissal. Direct questions are ignored or mocked. You bring nothing to the conversation except to label what you cannot refute as a "right-wing meme." If I make a reference to my dress size every one else seems to understand perfectly well that I'm only using an example that I am small in stature with no connotation as to my sexuality; except you who see nothing else. Yet, how much of the internet have you wasted in these threads complaining you have been misunderstood.

Your act is not new. It is the hallmark of a petty and hostile mind. I'd be more than happy to carry on a civil discourse with anyone, even those I disagree with. Not so long ago I almost chased away the most important person in my life being as you are today. I decided to be better. And I'm happier by not being so hostile.

Who knew?!

I don't put people on ignore. And I won't put you on ignore. If you ever feel like having a civil conversation let me know.

[cleanhippie]

73. "It is the hallmark of a petty and hostile mind." +1000000. You nailed it!

[Name removed]

69. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iverglas]

75. .......

WAFS (70 posts)
Fri Aug-26-11 11:00 AM
Response to Reply #57
70. He's a troll.
Plain and simple. His "thing" is arguing, not discussing.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Snork.



edit

Username: WAFS
Member since Aug 24th 2011
Number of posts 70

[Tuesday Afternoon]

83. sexist? iverglass? she may be a lot of things but, that would not be one of them

:rofl:

[iverglas]

84. hm

I shared your hilarity.

Nerd humour, I suspect

;)

[Tuesday Afternoon]

71. this is weird

because for once, you and I are in total agreement.

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iverglas]

28. "I forgot" "I was just following orders" ...

Nope.

Time for you to retract the ugly nonsense in your first post on the subject, chum.

[Name removed]

43. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[WAFS]

68. Your rights are inalienable...all of them.

Your right to free speech, freedom of association, your reproductive rights, and your right to keep and bear arms, and all of the rest. The misguided desire of the minority to restrict your ability to exercise those rights in no way diminishes them.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

78. Decent people indeed do agree, but it is not what you would consider effective

The mainstream opinion in this country goes something like his:
- Private ownership and possession of firearms in the home is okay
- Semi Auto rifles and pistols are okay
- Magazine size does not matter
- You should have a background check to own firearms
- Concealed carry is okay with training and background checks
- Criminals should be more harshly punished if they use guns
- The Government should not have lists everyone's firearms
- Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground laws are the correct way to go.

Most Americans are decent and they agree with the above. We are about 90% of the way there in most places. Make online checks instant and readily available for private transaction and convert no issue/may issue states to shall issue and we would pretty much be set except for repressive places like, California, WashDC, Chicago, NYC and a few other isolated areas.

[DanTex]

19. About average...

...as far as vacuous pro-gun arguments go.

I guess the idea here is that, regulation of ______ is comparable to restricting a woman's right to choose, and therefore restricting access to _______ for the sake of public safety is unjustified. Powerful stuff! The best part is how it doesn't make any difference whether we fill in the blank with "guns" or "plutonium" or "credit-default swaps".

Yay freedom!

[We_Have_A_Problem]

24. Can you make a reasonable argument to the contrary?

Based on something other than feelings, emotion, belief, fear, and/or ignorance?

I too used to be anti-gun, or at least utterly ambivalent about gun-control until I really looked at the issue and realized what was going on.

At the core, the gun-control argument all boils down to fear; fear that someone might misuse a gun.

To that, all I can say is, big deal. It is beneath contempt to hold the victim responsible for the acts of the criminal and to penalize the law-abiding for the potential acts of the lawless.

[iverglas]

29. of course not, nobody can, don't be a big silly

Nobody has ever presented a reasoned argument for firearms control.

Don't be ridiculous.

Run along now.

At the core, the gun-control argument all boils down to fear; fear that someone might misuse a gun.


At bottom, the gun militant argument all boils down to the right wing; the desire to control everybody else in their own interests.

It is beneath contempt to hold the victim responsible for the acts of the criminal and to penalize the law-abiding for the potential acts of the lawless.

And it's in another universe from contempt to make such false statements about people who have the gall to disagree with you, over and over and over world without end, in an effort to win by deceit.

[DanTex]

30. Just pointing out that the OP makes no argument at all.

Yes, there are plenty of arguments to the contrary. Do a little search, you'll find a bunch right here on this board.

At the core, the gun-control argument all boils down to fear; fear that someone might misuse a gun.
Another nice "multi-purpose" argument like the OP. You can replace the word "gun" with anything else without missing a beat. Try it out!

At the core, the ________-control argument all boils down to fear; fear that someone might misuse a ________.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

37. Not really...

there are emotional assertions to the contrary, but no real valid arguments, unless you completely ignore the concept of rights.

[iverglas]

41. "the concept of rights"

-- a concept which I have yet to encounter any gun militant that has even a basic grasp of.

Those you disagree with don't "ignore" the concept of rights. They understand it.

I have no idea whether you and your friends do or not, actually. It's just that if you do, you're strangely reluctant to let on. Maybe it just wouldn't serve your purposes, I dunno.

[DanTex]

42. I'm right and you're wrong!

I'm fact-based and you're emotional! Why do you hate freedom?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

32. Who argued in favor of plutonium ownership?

A gun is a tool for hunting, sport and self-defense. It can be perfectly safe if set out on the kitchen table. It will not leech into the environment.

Perhaps this analogy is poorly drawn.

The same can be said of credit default swaps being a poor analogy. CDSs are financial instruments created by acts of legislation to facilitate abstract transactions. Self-defense is a natural behavior. Using a tool to enhance a natural behavior seems to have more weight the abstract economic engineering.

[DanTex]

34. And abortion is a medical procedure, which also is nothing like a gun.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

35. You're saying abortion cannot be used to save a life?

Abortion is a right, as defined by our constitution.

So is owning a gun.

Even if it wasn't in the constitution the failure to specifically define that right doesn't mean the right does not exist.

I have a right to my own body. I have the right to be pregnant when I want to and I have a right to keep violent and/or sexual assaulters at bay.

[iverglas]

44. lemme guess; somebody else who has never read Roe v. Wade

Abortion is a right, as defined by our constitution.

That is so far off in weird land you need a telecope to see it.

Not even Roe v. Wade, unintelligible as it is, said that.

But let me play devil's advocate, and pretend that Roe v. Wade makes sense and is good law.

So is owning a gun.

So, then, are restrictions on gun possession permissible. There are a whole lot of restrictions on access to abortion in that Roe v. Wade of yours.

Now, of course, in reality, no restrictions on access to abortion and performing abortions are permissible -- beyond the requirement that, like other medical procedures, it be performed by a physician in accordance with the applicable standards. No other restrictions are justifiable or have ever been justified.

Conversely, many restrictions on access to and possession of firearms are permissible.

Just as many restrictions on speech are permissible, and many restrictions on liberty are permissible.

That's the thing about analogies.

The things that make the compared items different can just be their downfall.

Firearms and abortions are just so different in so many ways, aren't they? Nobody's requiring that only physicians provide firearms; be happy.

[DanTex]

45. Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. How did you guess?

Are you saying that plutonium can't be used to save a life? You know, most defensive uses of plutonium don't even involve nuking anybody -- just the threat is enough. And, sure, plutonium is dangerous if you don't store it properly, but the same is true for guns.

I have a right to my own body. Therefore I have the right to own plutonium. Any questions?


On edit: wondering if I need a :sarcasm: tag for the title...

[Nuclear Unicorn]

47. .

Do I or do I not have a right to defend myself?

[iverglas]

49. "Do I or do I not have a right to defend myself?"

With plutonium!!!1!11!

[Nuclear Unicorn]

51. In other words, you have no legitmate answer.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

85. Abortion is a right, as defined by our constitution. ??????

oh my fucking gawd.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

39. Oh i dont know...

...guns are quite effective, albeit crude, at performing long-distance lobotomies...

[_ed_]

63. Another selfish gun owner trying to justify their violent hobby

Very classy. Use a woman's right to self-determination to make a cheap point about your toy guns.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

64. Funny....

...i thought it was about real guns, and last time I checked, the decision to carry a gun for self-defense was the ultimate expression of the right to self-determination.

Don't let reality cloud the debate for you though.

[_ed_]

65. Do you know anyone who's had an abortion?

It's not like buying a little toy that goes boom boom to make you feel like a big man. You should find other ways of affirming your manhood.

[iverglas]

66. bizarre and truly sad

last time I checked, the decision to carry a gun for self-defense was the ultimate expression of the right to self-determination

And there was me, thinking that when I decided what to study, what work to do, where to live, whom to live with, whether and when and with whom to have kids, what political activities to engage in, all the stuff I have done by conscious choice all my life, I was engaging in some pretty significant exercises of my right to self-determination.

But no. I have not reached the pinnacle yet. I am still non-self-determined.

My decision NOT to tote a weapon around in public is NOT an expression of my right to self-determination.

Not until I decide to do that will I be a fully self-determined person. And since that day will be never, I am doomed to be, I don't know, what's the opposite of self-determined? Me, I guess. Going along my un-self-determined way, presumably having someone else make all my life choices for me, or just being so unconscious that things just happen to me by accident.

Why? Because some nobody on an internet discussion board said so, I guess.

And yes, the poster is right, of course. The exploitation of women's long struggle for self-determination in so many ways, including reproductive freedom, in the service of anyone's agenda, let alone one so inimical to women's interests, is as disgusting every time it rears its head as it was the previous brazillion times. And it doesn't matter who or what the person or organization doing it is, or claims to be.

Carrying a fucking gun around is the ultimate expression of self-determination. Ye goods and little fishies, just when you think you've seen it all ...

[WAFS]

67. If I have to ask the government's permission to do something, then it's not a right...

It's a privilege, and the SCOTUS has reaffirmed the already existing RIGHT of Americans to own firearms. RIGHT, not privilege. I'm fortunate to live in Virginia, where I can openly carry a firearm without any sort of permit. I can also purchase a firearm without a permit. I can own any number of so-called "assault" weapons without a permit of any kind.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

72. welcome to DU and agree with your comment.

[WAFS]

86. Thank you. n/t

[Remmah2]

74. Prove it to us?

Do you have a certificate that declares you or anyone as intelligent? To what standards is a person intelligent? Where can I find a panel of judges who can bestow a declaration of intelligence?

Everybody is ignorant, only on different subjects. (Will Rodgers).

[iverglas]

76. those who do not read beyond the subject line of a post

are doomed to make themselves look really silly.

[spin]

87. Is that an "iverglas say" quote ...

something like a Confucius say quote.

Somewhat like ...

Confucius say, man who leap off cliff jump to conclusion.