BigRedBuster Posted October 5, 2017 Share Posted October 5, 2017 11 minutes ago, RedDenver said: Even if without a mandate guns were only really available to the wealthy? 7 minutes ago, Dbqgolfer said: Yep, kind of like the cost of a Mercedes prohibits me from owning one, but it isn't an infringement on my right to own one. What if by NOT buying a gun through the GII you knew you were going to die by the effects of not owning one? Link to comment
The Dude Posted October 5, 2017 Share Posted October 5, 2017 Las Vegas shooting: NRA urges new rules for gun 'bump-stocks' http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41519815 Link to comment
knapplc Posted October 5, 2017 Share Posted October 5, 2017 @Dbqgolfer I disagree with your stance on this and several other issues, but I do appreciate that your posts make me think. 3 Link to comment
schriznoeder Posted October 5, 2017 Share Posted October 5, 2017 2 minutes ago, The Dude said: Las Vegas shooting: NRA urges new rules for gun 'bump-stocks' http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41519815 What?! Did Wayne LaPierre forget to take his meds this morning? Link to comment
knapplc Posted October 5, 2017 Share Posted October 5, 2017 The NRA realizes that would be a long, expensive battle that they'd likely lose, and it isn't worth the fight. They get better PR by appearing to be forward on the issue, giving the semblance of a concession, so they turn what would have been a loss into a win. 5 Link to comment
The Dude Posted October 5, 2017 Share Posted October 5, 2017 38 minutes ago, schriznoeder said: What?! Did Wayne LaPierre forget to take his meds this morning? I think even he realizes bump stocks are gay. 1 Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted October 5, 2017 Share Posted October 5, 2017 The NRA is in...."oh s#!t".....mode. Link to comment
QMany Posted October 5, 2017 Share Posted October 5, 2017 1 minute ago, BigRedBuster said: The NRA is in...."oh s#!t".....mode. I don't know if I see it that way. I think they are conceding a very small battle, probably not worth fighting, and feigning real cooperation in hopes of winning the bigger war. 5 Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted October 5, 2017 Share Posted October 5, 2017 31 minutes ago, QMany said: I don't know if I see it that way. I think they are conceding a very small battle, probably not worth fighting, and feigning real cooperation in hopes of winning the bigger war. I believe that before when this issue came up, they fought against banning them. I could be wrong. But, that's what I understood. Now, 59 people dead and 527 injured and it's...."Oh s#!t........we gotta throw out a bone and try to fend off the wolves right now because we are going to come under fire" (pun intended). Link to comment
Dbqgolfer Posted October 5, 2017 Share Posted October 5, 2017 42 minutes ago, knapplc said: @Dbqgolfer I disagree with your stance on this and several other issues, but I do appreciate that your posts make me think. Thanks. I always enjoy reading the different perspectives on this board. 2 Link to comment
knapplc Posted October 5, 2017 Share Posted October 5, 2017 I chuckled about this one. 7 Link to comment
Dbqgolfer Posted October 5, 2017 Share Posted October 5, 2017 1 hour ago, BigRedBuster said: What if by NOT buying a gun through the GII you knew you were going to die by the effects of not owning one? Still wouldn't be an infringement on my right. Just because I don't believe something to be a right, doesn't mean I don't think that society doesn't have an obligation to help. Link to comment
RedDenver Posted October 5, 2017 Share Posted October 5, 2017 2 hours ago, Dbqgolfer said: Yep, kind of like the cost of a Mercedes prohibits me from owning one, but it isn't an infringement on my right to own one. I get that but I'm asking about what you're calling a right, which luxury car ownership is not. Even car ownership is not a right. Is your stance that there's no price at which your rights have been taken away even if it means the price is so high that only a fraction of the population could afford it? Like if guns started at $100k or $1 million. Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted October 5, 2017 Share Posted October 5, 2017 1 hour ago, Dbqgolfer said: Still wouldn't be an infringement on my right. Just because I don't believe something to be a right, doesn't mean I don't think that society doesn't have an obligation to help. So...... If you know you and society know you are going to die if you don't get something, that doesn't some how relate to: The unalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? 1 Link to comment
Dbqgolfer Posted October 6, 2017 Share Posted October 6, 2017 4 hours ago, BigRedBuster said: 4 hours ago, BigRedBuster said: So...... If you know you and society know you are going to die if you don't get something, that doesn't some how relate to: The unalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? The lack of providing something is not the same as infringing upon your right to have it. So, if the gov't doesn't provide me with healthcare, it doesn't mean that my "right to healthcare" being infringed upon by the gov't. So, no, the lack of providing me something, even if I will die without it, is not infringing on my rights to life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness. The primary person responsible for Dbqgolfer's healthcare, is Dbqgolfer; not BRB or anyone else. Having said that, of course I want the best possible healthcare for the most amount of people. I happen to believe that the free market is the best way to deliver. (health savings accounts combined with catastrophic health insurance, for example). Link to comment
Recommended Posts