Empirical Liberty Framework for Debating Gun Control

Political discussions
User avatar
Chizzang
Level5
Level5
Posts: 19273
Joined: Mon Apr 20, 2009 7:36 am
I am a fan of: Deflate Gate
A.K.A.: The Quasar Kid
Location: Soon to be Eden Prairie...

Re: Empirical Liberty Framework for Debating Gun Control

Post by Chizzang »

Ibanez wrote:
Chizzang wrote:
I can tell you immediately:
The sliding scale of morality is the classic Conservative conundrum

:nod:
Personal freedom and accountability stops at the uterus....apparently.
When it comes to the moral high ground, I guess so
They get to pretend they care about the life of something (very specifically)
but not the lives of anybody else (very generally)

Whilst simultaneously (very specifically) taking away a persons rights
So they can (very generally) save the rights of something

It's a logical nightmare - if you actually apply logic evenly to your personal opinions

:geek:

and that is not even taking into account the further "If this - then that" they do
when you get down to the actual details
The whole thing is a slippery slide sh!t show from the get go
Q: Name something that offends Republicans?
A: The actual teachings of Jesus
User avatar
css75
Level3
Level3
Posts: 2515
Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2018 10:45 pm

Re: Empirical Liberty Framework for Debating Gun Control

Post by css75 »

Ibanez wrote:
css75 wrote:
You are 75% correct Chiz.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
What do you have a problem with? Women doing what they want their bodies? Proof of ID at a voting station?
Ignoring the unborn life.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
User avatar
JohnStOnge
Egalitarian
Egalitarian
Posts: 20313
Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2010 5:47 pm
I am a fan of: McNeese State
A.K.A.: JohnStOnge

Re: Empirical Liberty Framework for Debating Gun Control

Post by JohnStOnge »

Chizzang wrote: John
I'm aware of the sliding scale of morality that gets applied to life and death
Which is why I am NOT in the business of crawling into other peoples rights

There is no inconsistency in my view on rights like you struggle with
I don't struggle at all. There is no inconsistency in my view. My view is that a person should be able to do whatever they want to do so long as they don't directly and definitely attack another individual or another individual's interests.

Abortion is a definite, direct, fatal attack on another individual. That's not opinion either. That's fact. It's an easy call for me.

We do have to "crawl into other peoples' rights" at times. Like there is a right to the pursuit of happiness. But if what makes one person happy is, for example, breaking into other peoples' houses and stealing their valuables we have to "crawl into" their right to the pursuit of happiness. They are definitely, directly, and intentionally attacking the interests of other individuals.

That's different than, say, hunting. We could "save lives" by outlawing all hunting. People do get killed in hunting accidents. But hunting is not typically a direct and definite attack on other human beings. There is some small probability that when somebody goes hunting that scenario will result in somebody getting killed. But it's not something that should be outlawed just because doing so "would save lives."
Well, I believe that I must tell the truth
And say things as they really are
But if I told the truth and nothing but the truth
Could I ever be a star?

Deep Purple: No One Came
Image
User avatar
Chizzang
Level5
Level5
Posts: 19273
Joined: Mon Apr 20, 2009 7:36 am
I am a fan of: Deflate Gate
A.K.A.: The Quasar Kid
Location: Soon to be Eden Prairie...

Re: Empirical Liberty Framework for Debating Gun Control

Post by Chizzang »

JohnStOnge wrote:
Chizzang wrote: John
I'm aware of the sliding scale of morality that gets applied to life and death
Which is why I am NOT in the business of crawling into other peoples rights

There is no inconsistency in my view on rights like you struggle with
I don't struggle at all. There is no inconsistency in my view. My view is that a person should be able to do whatever they want to do so long as they don't directly and definitely attack another individual or another individual's interests.

Abortion is a definite, direct, fatal attack on another individual. That's not opinion either. That's fact. It's an easy call for me.

We do have to "crawl into other peoples' rights" at times. Like there is a right to the pursuit of happiness. But if what makes one person happy is, for example, breaking into other peoples' houses and stealing their valuables we have to "crawl into" their right to the pursuit of happiness. They are definitely, directly, and intentionally attacking the interests of other individuals.

That's different than, say, hunting. We could "save lives" by outlawing all hunting. People do get killed in hunting accidents. But hunting is not typically a direct and definite attack on other human beings. There is some small probability that when somebody goes hunting that scenario will result in somebody getting killed. But it's not something that should be outlawed just because doing so "would save lives."
John those are some pretty dumb examples...
So thank you for that (I got a good giggle)

I'll try to help you:
"The Pursuit of happiness" is a phrase used in the Declaration of Independence
It's used in a general way to imply the freedoms that are associated with being a citizen of this Republic
It's a stolen phrase from John Locke (Who Kalm and I were just talking about)
and it frustrated James Monroe to no end because he felt like it confused people
more than it informed them (such as you are now)

Monroe said it was in no way the governments job to "generally diffuse happiness throughout the community"
but more an observation that we are free peoples...

I'm here to help...

:geek:
Q: Name something that offends Republicans?
A: The actual teachings of Jesus
User avatar
JohnStOnge
Egalitarian
Egalitarian
Posts: 20313
Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2010 5:47 pm
I am a fan of: McNeese State
A.K.A.: JohnStOnge

Re: Empirical Liberty Framework for Debating Gun Control

Post by JohnStOnge »

Chizzang wrote:
JohnStOnge wrote:
I don't struggle at all. There is no inconsistency in my view. My view is that a person should be able to do whatever they want to do so long as they don't directly and definitely attack another individual or another individual's interests.

Abortion is a definite, direct, fatal attack on another individual. That's not opinion either. That's fact. It's an easy call for me.

We do have to "crawl into other peoples' rights" at times. Like there is a right to the pursuit of happiness. But if what makes one person happy is, for example, breaking into other peoples' houses and stealing their valuables we have to "crawl into" their right to the pursuit of happiness. They are definitely, directly, and intentionally attacking the interests of other individuals.

That's different than, say, hunting. We could "save lives" by outlawing all hunting. People do get killed in hunting accidents. But hunting is not typically a direct and definite attack on other human beings. There is some small probability that when somebody goes hunting that scenario will result in somebody getting killed. But it's not something that should be outlawed just because doing so "would save lives."
John those are some pretty dumb examples...
So thank you for that (I got a good giggle)

I'll try to help you:
"The Pursuit of happiness" is a phrase used in the Declaration of Independence
It's used in a general way to imply the freedoms that are associated with being a citizen of this Republic
It's a stolen phrase from John Locke (Who Kalm and I were just talking about)
and it frustrated James Monroe to no end because he felt like it confused people
more than it informed them (such as you are now)

Monroe said it was in no way the governments job to "generally diffuse happiness throughout the community"
but more an observation that we are free peoples...

I'm here to help...

:geek:
So are you saying we don't have a right to the pursuit of happiness?

If you prefer make it the right to do what you want to do. But if what you want to do is break into other peoples' houses and steal their stuff we say you can't do that.

And if what you want to do is kill another individual simply because their existence is inconvenient to you we also say you can't do that. Except, of course, if the other individual is unborn.

By the way saying a person has the right to pursue happiness is not saying that government has an obligation to "generally diffuse happiness throughout the community." Please provide the full quote in full context.
Well, I believe that I must tell the truth
And say things as they really are
But if I told the truth and nothing but the truth
Could I ever be a star?

Deep Purple: No One Came
Image
User avatar
Chizzang
Level5
Level5
Posts: 19273
Joined: Mon Apr 20, 2009 7:36 am
I am a fan of: Deflate Gate
A.K.A.: The Quasar Kid
Location: Soon to be Eden Prairie...

Re: Empirical Liberty Framework for Debating Gun Control

Post by Chizzang »

JohnStOnge wrote:
Chizzang wrote:
John those are some pretty dumb examples...
So thank you for that (I got a good giggle)

I'll try to help you:
"The Pursuit of happiness" is a phrase used in the Declaration of Independence
It's used in a general way to imply the freedoms that are associated with being a citizen of this Republic
It's a stolen phrase from John Locke (Who Kalm and I were just talking about)
and it frustrated James Monroe to no end because he felt like it confused people
more than it informed them (such as you are now)

Monroe said it was in no way the governments job to "generally diffuse happiness throughout the community"
but more an observation that we are free peoples...

I'm here to help...

:geek:
So are you saying we don't have a right to the pursuit of happiness?

If you prefer make it the right to do what you want to do. But if what you want to do is break into other peoples' houses and steal their stuff we say you can't do that.

And if what you want to do is kill another individual simply because their existence is inconvenient to you we also say you can't do that. Except, of course, if the other individual is unborn.

By the way saying a person has the right to pursue happiness is not saying that government has an obligation to "generally diffuse happiness throughout the community." Please provide the full quote in full context.
John.. It's adorable when you're like this
What I'm saying is "Happiness" per se, can't be legislated away from you (Like the right to vote)
and it can't be given to you (like a drivers license)

It's just a "phrase" in the The Declaration of Independence
That means we are free citizens of an independent Republic
Mostly to annoy the English - the king or queen can't conscript you into service - kind of thing

:ohno:

You wonder why so many people here think you might be suffering from some kind of mental issue
and I defend you around here... which ain't always easy my friend
Q: Name something that offends Republicans?
A: The actual teachings of Jesus
houndawg
Level5
Level5
Posts: 23236
Joined: Tue Oct 14, 2008 1:14 pm
I am a fan of: SIU
A.K.A.: houndawg
Location: Egypt

Re: Empirical Liberty Framework for Debating Gun Control

Post by houndawg »

AZGrizFan wrote:
ASUG8 wrote:IMO most responsible gun owners don't mind background checks as it seems like (in principle) a method to be sure that the states have signed off on a prospective gun owner as a non-felon although we all know that a large proportion of gun murders happen outside the lines of legality.
If you could assure me with 100% confidence that that's ALL a background check was ever used for then I MIGHT be able to agree (in principle)....but knowing our benevolent government, if the pendulum DOES start swinging too far to the anti-gun crowd, I fear the background checks will just become a checklist of houses for the newly formed Fire Arms Removal Team (or FART) to visit and confiscate weapons.
Too late. If you emptied every donut shop in the country there wouldn't be enough cops to collect all the guns we have if they did nothing else.
The best way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of opinion but allow very lively debate within that spectrum - Noam Chomsky
houndawg
Level5
Level5
Posts: 23236
Joined: Tue Oct 14, 2008 1:14 pm
I am a fan of: SIU
A.K.A.: houndawg
Location: Egypt

Re: Empirical Liberty Framework for Debating Gun Control

Post by houndawg »

Chizzang wrote:
kalm wrote:
I’m a liberal and I know a number of other liberals who would agree with your treatise and don’t want to confiscate your ****.
I think that most East Coasters don't really know much about North West liberals
Spokane and Seattle are jam packed with Liberals that own guns
As well as Most of Oregon outside of Portland
and Most of Idaho and Montana

:geek:

There are liberal rednecks everywhere in the nation. :coffee:
The best way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of opinion but allow very lively debate within that spectrum - Noam Chomsky
User avatar
CID1990
Level5
Level5
Posts: 25460
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:40 am
I am a fan of: Pie
A.K.A.: CID 1990
Location: กรุงเทพมหานคร

Re: Empirical Liberty Framework for Debating Gun Control

Post by CID1990 »

JohnStOnge wrote:
Chizzang wrote:
John those are some pretty dumb examples...
So thank you for that (I got a good giggle)

I'll try to help you:
"The Pursuit of happiness" is a phrase used in the Declaration of Independence
It's used in a general way to imply the freedoms that are associated with being a citizen of this Republic
It's a stolen phrase from John Locke (Who Kalm and I were just talking about)
and it frustrated James Monroe to no end because he felt like it confused people
more than it informed them (such as you are now)

Monroe said it was in no way the governments job to "generally diffuse happiness throughout the community"
but more an observation that we are free peoples...

I'm here to help...

:geek:
So are you saying we don't have a right to the pursuit of happiness?
I don't think you are reading carefully

The pursuit of happiness is generally understood as the realization of actual natural rights as understood by the Enlightenment. You have already shown that you understand that "happiness" is relative. Natural rights are not - they are clear and definable. And their realization is what makes the pursuit of happiness possible- whatever that may be to you



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
"You however, are an insufferable ankle biting mental chihuahua..." - Clizzoris
Ibanez
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 60482
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 5:16 pm
I am a fan of: Coastal Carolina

Re: Empirical Liberty Framework for Debating Gun Control

Post by Ibanez »

JohnStOnge wrote:
Chizzang wrote:
John those are some pretty dumb examples...
So thank you for that (I got a good giggle)

I'll try to help you:
"The Pursuit of happiness" is a phrase used in the Declaration of Independence
It's used in a general way to imply the freedoms that are associated with being a citizen of this Republic
It's a stolen phrase from John Locke (Who Kalm and I were just talking about)
and it frustrated James Monroe to no end because he felt like it confused people
more than it informed them (such as you are now)

Monroe said it was in no way the governments job to "generally diffuse happiness throughout the community"
but more an observation that we are free peoples...

I'm here to help...

:geek:
So are you saying we don't have a right to the pursuit of happiness?

If you prefer make it the right to do what you want to do. But if what you want to do is break into other peoples' houses and steal their stuff we say you can't do that.

And if what you want to do is kill another individual simply because their existence is inconvenient to you we also say you can't do that. Except, of course, if the other individual is unborn.

By the way saying a person has the right to pursue happiness is not saying that government has an obligation to "generally diffuse happiness throughout the community." Please provide the full quote in full context.
Also- the Declaration Of Independence is a “Dear George” letter. It’s not a document that gives any legal rights. It’s saying a break up letter. It was our 2-weeks notice. Keep that In mind when you are saying we are guaranteed something because TJ stole a phrase ( and then changed it. It’s life, liberty and property.)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Turns out I might be a little gay. 89Hen 11/7/17
User avatar
JohnStOnge
Egalitarian
Egalitarian
Posts: 20313
Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2010 5:47 pm
I am a fan of: McNeese State
A.K.A.: JohnStOnge

Re: Empirical Liberty Framework for Debating Gun Control

Post by JohnStOnge »

Chizzang wrote: What I'm saying is "Happiness" per se, can't be legislated away from you (Like the right to vote)
and it can't be given to you (like a drivers license)

It's just a "phrase" in the The Declaration of Independence
I didn't say happiness can be legislated away or given to you like a drivers' license. Also, I don't think happiness is a right. But being free to pursue it is. That would be the case whether it was explicitly stated in the Declaration of Independence or not.
Well, I believe that I must tell the truth
And say things as they really are
But if I told the truth and nothing but the truth
Could I ever be a star?

Deep Purple: No One Came
Image
User avatar
JohnStOnge
Egalitarian
Egalitarian
Posts: 20313
Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2010 5:47 pm
I am a fan of: McNeese State
A.K.A.: JohnStOnge

Re: Empirical Liberty Framework for Debating Gun Control

Post by JohnStOnge »

CID1990 wrote:
JohnStOnge wrote:
So are you saying we don't have a right to the pursuit of happiness?
I don't think you are reading carefully

The pursuit of happiness is generally understood as the realization of actual natural rights as understood by the Enlightenment. You have already shown that you understand that "happiness" is relative. Natural rights are not - they are clear and definable. And their realization is what makes the pursuit of happiness possible- whatever that may be to you
My position is that you have a right to do what you want as long as you are not attacking other individuals or their interests. Probability is involved in that because it's not possible to live your life without affecting the probability that someone else or their interests will be unintentionally damaged. We got off into a side discussion because someone opined that my position on abortion is inconsistent with my basic position on such things.

And it's not. Abortion is attacking another individual with the clear intent of killing them. The chance that the individual you are attacking will die is 100%. Being against current US abortion policy is completely consistent with my principles. Driving with a 0.10 BAC vs. not drinking at all, for example, is changing the probability that a fatality will happen when you drive 30 miles from about 1 in 3 million to about 1 in 1 million when you have no intent to harm anyone else. Saying we shouldn't be doing the draconian stuff we're doing with the DUI thing is also completely consistent with my principles.

Otherwise: I'm pretty sure Thomas Jefferson would have said a person has a right to pursue happiness whether the phrase is taken as the subject of the interview at http://news.emory.edu/stories/2014/06/e ... ampus.html takes it or not. And actually I do not think we have a right to "... the experience of happiness."

We do, I think, have a right to do what we think will make us happy as long as we do not attack other individuals or their interests.

That would be my position regardless of what Enlightenment philosophers had to say.
Well, I believe that I must tell the truth
And say things as they really are
But if I told the truth and nothing but the truth
Could I ever be a star?

Deep Purple: No One Came
Image
User avatar
CID1990
Level5
Level5
Posts: 25460
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:40 am
I am a fan of: Pie
A.K.A.: CID 1990
Location: กรุงเทพมหานคร

Re: Empirical Liberty Framework for Debating Gun Control

Post by CID1990 »

JohnStOnge wrote:
CID1990 wrote:
I don't think you are reading carefully

The pursuit of happiness is generally understood as the realization of actual natural rights as understood by the Enlightenment. You have already shown that you understand that "happiness" is relative. Natural rights are not - they are clear and definable. And their realization is what makes the pursuit of happiness possible- whatever that may be to you
That would be my position regardless of what Enlightenment philosophers had to say.
Well its a good thing the founders did pay attention to the prevailing philosophies then

else we'd have a meandering train wreck of a Constitution, similar to your posts

instead, we have a clear, succinct bill of rights which clearly spells out those things that government may not do

so you can pursue your happiness



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
"You however, are an insufferable ankle biting mental chihuahua..." - Clizzoris
User avatar
JohnStOnge
Egalitarian
Egalitarian
Posts: 20313
Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2010 5:47 pm
I am a fan of: McNeese State
A.K.A.: JohnStOnge

Re: Empirical Liberty Framework for Debating Gun Control

Post by JohnStOnge »

CID1990 wrote:
JohnStOnge wrote:
That would be my position regardless of what Enlightenment philosophers had to say.
Well its a good thing the founders did pay attention to the prevailing philosophies then

else we'd have a meandering train wreck of a Constitution, similar to your posts

instead, we have a clear, succinct bill of rights which clearly spells out those things that government may not do

so you can pursue your happiness



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Not, if some have their way, if it would make me happy to buy an "assault weapon."
Well, I believe that I must tell the truth
And say things as they really are
But if I told the truth and nothing but the truth
Could I ever be a star?

Deep Purple: No One Came
Image
User avatar
CID1990
Level5
Level5
Posts: 25460
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:40 am
I am a fan of: Pie
A.K.A.: CID 1990
Location: กรุงเทพมหานคร

Re: Empirical Liberty Framework for Debating Gun Control

Post by CID1990 »

JohnStOnge wrote:
CID1990 wrote:
Well its a good thing the founders did pay attention to the prevailing philosophies then

else we'd have a meandering train wreck of a Constitution, similar to your posts

instead, we have a clear, succinct bill of rights which clearly spells out those things that government may not do

so you can pursue your happiness



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Not, if some have their way, if it would make me happy to buy an "assault weapon."
Whether or not we protect the bill of rights is a different topic
"You however, are an insufferable ankle biting mental chihuahua..." - Clizzoris
User avatar
JohnStOnge
Egalitarian
Egalitarian
Posts: 20313
Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2010 5:47 pm
I am a fan of: McNeese State
A.K.A.: JohnStOnge

Re: Empirical Liberty Framework for Debating Gun Control

Post by JohnStOnge »

And by the way I am not free to pursue happiness in this country. I'm not allowed to smoke pot if I want. I can't go to a wedding reception and drink champagne without having to worry about the ridiculously over the top DUI thing that is going on in the country right now. I can't pay a woman to have sex with me if I want.
Well, I believe that I must tell the truth
And say things as they really are
But if I told the truth and nothing but the truth
Could I ever be a star?

Deep Purple: No One Came
Image
User avatar
AZGrizFan
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 59959
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 4:40 pm
I am a fan of: Sexual Chocolate
Location: Just to the right of center

Re: Empirical Liberty Framework for Debating Gun Control

Post by AZGrizFan »

Ibanez wrote:
AZGrizFan wrote:
If you could assure me with 100% confidence that that's ALL a background check was ever used for then I MIGHT be able to agree (in principle)....but knowing our benevolent government, if the pendulum DOES start swinging too far to the anti-gun crowd, I fear the background checks will just become a checklist of houses for the newly formed Fire Arms Removal Team (or FART) to visit and confiscate weapons.
What makes you think the government doesn’t have a record of you now?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Because I know.
"Ah fuck. You are right." KYJelly, 11/6/12
"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam." Barack Obama, 9/25/12
Image
User avatar
AZGrizFan
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 59959
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 4:40 pm
I am a fan of: Sexual Chocolate
Location: Just to the right of center

Re: Empirical Liberty Framework for Debating Gun Control

Post by AZGrizFan »

houndawg wrote:
AZGrizFan wrote:
If you could assure me with 100% confidence that that's ALL a background check was ever used for then I MIGHT be able to agree (in principle)....but knowing our benevolent government, if the pendulum DOES start swinging too far to the anti-gun crowd, I fear the background checks will just become a checklist of houses for the newly formed Fire Arms Removal Team (or FART) to visit and confiscate weapons.
Too late. If you emptied every donut shop in the country there wouldn't be enough cops to collect all the guns we have if they did nothing else.
It’s cute how naive you are sometimes.
"Ah fuck. You are right." KYJelly, 11/6/12
"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam." Barack Obama, 9/25/12
Image
User avatar
AZGrizFan
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 59959
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 4:40 pm
I am a fan of: Sexual Chocolate
Location: Just to the right of center

Re: Empirical Liberty Framework for Debating Gun Control

Post by AZGrizFan »

Chizzang wrote:
JohnStOnge wrote:BTW Chiz this is how the thinking I'm talking about works with respect to fun violence. What is the probability that a randomlly selected sale of a rifle to someone younger than 21 will result in the death of a human being that otherwise would not have occurred at the time it occurred? How many millions of sales of rifles to people younger than 21 are there? I think you would expect, without trying to look it up, that the probability is very low. So why are we saying that someone who is 19 can't go out and buy a semi-automatic 22 with a scope so they can go squirrel hunting with it?

But if someone buys a rifle then intentionally kills someone with it they are engaging in an intentional act that obviously SHOULD be illegal. If you have a rifle and you are TRYING to kill someone with it the probability that a death will result obviously becomes fairly high. And, again, there is an intentional attack on another individual.

That doesn't mean Bobby Joe shouldn't be able to buy his 22 when all he wants to do is go squirrel hunting.
John
I'm aware of the sliding scale of morality that gets applied to life and death
Which is why I am NOT in the business of crawling into other peoples rights

There is no inconsistency in my view on rights like you struggle with

I think
guns should be legal and fairly easy to get
I think
women should be allowed to consult their doctor
without sanctimonious cunts like you inserting themselves in the middle
I think
voting should require as much proof of identity as boarding a international flight
I think
Freedom of speech is more important than hurting peoples feelings
:kisswink: :kisswink: :kisswink: :nod:
"Ah fuck. You are right." KYJelly, 11/6/12
"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam." Barack Obama, 9/25/12
Image
User avatar
93henfan
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 56357
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2009 9:03 pm
Location: Slower Delaware

Re: Empirical Liberty Framework for Debating Gun Control

Post by 93henfan »

AZGrizFan wrote:
houndawg wrote:
Too late. If you emptied every donut shop in the country there wouldn't be enough cops to collect all the guns we have if they did nothing else.
It’s cute how naive you are sometimes.
I'm sure somebody in Australia before 1996 said they wouldn't collect the guns there either.

Image
Image
Image
Delaware Football: 1889-2012; 2022-
User avatar
CID1990
Level5
Level5
Posts: 25460
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:40 am
I am a fan of: Pie
A.K.A.: CID 1990
Location: กรุงเทพมหานคร

Re: Empirical Liberty Framework for Debating Gun Control

Post by CID1990 »

Frankly I’m surprised after the election of Donald Trump that the left would still be pushing for only the government having guns.

Image
"You however, are an insufferable ankle biting mental chihuahua..." - Clizzoris
User avatar
93henfan
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 56357
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2009 9:03 pm
Location: Slower Delaware

Re: Empirical Liberty Framework for Debating Gun Control

Post by 93henfan »

Abolishing the 2nd Amendment is no problem. Just get three fourths (38) of states to approve it and you’re golden. Based on voting in the last four presidential elections:

The Locks (16) - CA, CT, DE, HI, IL, MA, MD, ME, MN, NH, NJ, NY, OR, RI, VT, WA

The Maybes (12) - CO, FL, IA, IN, MI, NC, NM, NV, OH, PA, VA, WI

The Yeah Good Luck With Thats (22) - AL, AK, AR, AZ, GA, ID, KS, KY, LA, MO, MS, MT, NE, ND, OK, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, WV, WY

So all you need is every one of the Maybes and ten of the Yeah Good Luck With That’s.

Easy Peasy.
Delaware Football: 1889-2012; 2022-
Ibanez
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 60482
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 5:16 pm
I am a fan of: Coastal Carolina

Re: Empirical Liberty Framework for Debating Gun Control

Post by Ibanez »

AZGrizFan wrote:
Ibanez wrote: What makes you think the government doesn’t have a record of you now?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Because I know.
It’s cute how naive you are. Our government acts outside its own laws all the time. I’d bet guns and serial numbers are secretly recorded at same level.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Turns out I might be a little gay. 89Hen 11/7/17
HI54UNI
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 12387
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 9:39 pm
I am a fan of: Firing Mark Farley
A.K.A.: Bikinis for JSO
Location: The Panther State

Re: Empirical Liberty Framework for Debating Gun Control

Post by HI54UNI »

93henfan wrote:Abolishing the 2nd Amendment is no problem. Just get three fourths (38) of states to approve it and you’re golden. Based on voting in the last four presidential elections:

The Locks (16) - CA, CT, DE, HI, IL, MA, MD, ME, MN, NH, NJ, NY, OR, RI, VT, WA

The Maybes (12) - CO, FL, IA, IN, MI, NC, NM, NV, OH, PA, VA, WI

The Yeah Good Luck With Thats (22) - AL, AK, AR, AZ, GA, ID, KS, KY, LA, MO, MS, MT, NE, ND, OK, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, WV, WY

So all you need is every one of the Maybes and ten of the Yeah Good Luck With That’s.

Easy Peasy.
You can take Iowa out of the Maybes and put it in the Good Luck with That.
If fascism ever comes to America, it will come in the name of liberalism. Ronald Reagan, 1975.

Progressivism is cancer

All my posts are satire
User avatar
93henfan
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 56357
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2009 9:03 pm
Location: Slower Delaware

Re: Empirical Liberty Framework for Debating Gun Control

Post by 93henfan »

HI54UNI wrote:
93henfan wrote:Abolishing the 2nd Amendment is no problem. Just get three fourths (38) of states to approve it and you’re golden. Based on voting in the last four presidential elections:

The Locks (16) - CA, CT, DE, HI, IL, MA, MD, ME, MN, NH, NJ, NY, OR, RI, VT, WA

The Maybes (12) - CO, FL, IA, IN, MI, NC, NM, NV, OH, PA, VA, WI

The Yeah Good Luck With Thats (22) - AL, AK, AR, AZ, GA, ID, KS, KY, LA, MO, MS, MT, NE, ND, OK, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, WV, WY

So all you need is every one of the Maybes and ten of the Yeah Good Luck With That’s.

Easy Peasy.



You can take Iowa out of the Maybes and put it in the Good Luck with That.
Like I said, my criteria was “last four presidential elections”. You were blue at least once.

Sure, you can nitpick many. IN almost certainly would vote against. Even in the lock category, NH is pretty resistant to Govt overreach.

The point here being, it ain’t happening. The best hope for libtards is to stack SCOTUS and overturn DC v Heller or just continue to whittle away at gun characteristics (i.e. AWBs).
Delaware Football: 1889-2012; 2022-
Post Reply