Bill O'Reilly its time for gun control

[jackstar7]

I appreciate all that you volunteered. I didn't even put you in the not-honest camp.

I will say that it's been a lifetime of anecdotal experiences that brought about my skepticism of some gun enthusiasts.

Is it fair to say you've met people that you hope don't own guns? Like that ex for instance? Those are the sort of people that have grown my skepticism to its current state.

 

[MongGrel]

Why don't you just put me on ignore instead of these useless responses?

Who are these people?

Your roundabout way of whining has pretty much become a bit of a joke over time, but you persist to barrel onward.

Why bother putting you on ignore, it's like part time entertainment.

 

[jackstar7]

I'd like to address this, but before I do, what are your thoughts on gun control? What do you think needs to be changed / banned / more regulated?

I think there can be reasonable gun control measures taken. Background checks seem nigh-universally welcomed, yet are not federally mandated for all sales, and not yet handled in a way that would be of much use to those monitoring it.

I think we already limit arms ownership, so it is something that ought to be looked at regularly. New weapons are developed from time to time and study should be carried out by publicly funded researchers to make sure we don't wind up with civilians able to have white phosphorus or whatever is next and basically a war crime... is there room for reasonable controls? Seemed like 3D printed guns were going to be a new scourge, but that seems to have fizzled from the list of public menace nonsense fears. But who knows what new tech will bring.

 

[glenn1]

Once again, I'm not trying to restrict anything based on dickishness. But when you're making arguments and I say I'm open to hearing them, when the dickishness comes in I'm going to care less about the argument. Just a sticking point about mutual respect I try to stick to when I get into what seems like a worthwhile discussion. Silly on the internet, I know.

The reasons don't matter in relation to the right. They matter with regards to the responsibility. Especially with how often people cite "responsible gun-owners" in their evidence of various things.

There was a point in me sending that as a reason. It was not just to be a dick, but rather show that intent completely it does not matter when it comes to rights. I could be doing things for the absolutely worst possible reasons and you still don't get to restrict me from doing them.

There is no possible reason or justification to explain why Westboro Baptist Church goes around protesting funerals, yet I would fight and kill or die to protect their First Amendment right to do so. There is no reason or justification other than to be transgressive why someone should commit "blasphemy" create so-called art that depicts Muhammad as a dog and being anally raped, but I would fight for your right to do so.

None of my rights are up for negotiation or discussion. If today I allowed you to restrict my 2nd Amendment rights, then what's to prevent you from restricting my other rights? What next, will you bring back miscegenation and invalidate my marriage? Will you continue to allow the suppression of speech, letting a muscle beat up those you disagree with? Will you outlaw my religion? If I can't trust you with one of the Amendments then why the hell would I trust you with any of the others? We've already voluntarily surrendered enough of our rights as it is with the NSA spying thing.

 

[jackstar7]

There was a point in me sending that as a reason. It was not just to be a dick, but rather show that intent completely it does not matter when it comes to rights. I could be doing things for the absolutely worst possible reasons and you still don't get to restrict me from doing them.

There is no possible reason or justification to explain why Westboro Baptist Church goes around protesting funerals, yet I would fight and kill or die to protect their First Amendment right to do so. There is no reason or justification other than to be transgressive why someone should commit "blasphemy" create so-called art that depicts Muhammad as a dog and being anally raped, but I would fight for your right to do so.

None of my rights are up for negotiation or discussion. If today I allowed you to restrict my 2nd Amendment rights, then what's to prevent you from restricting my other rights? What next, will you bring back miscegenation and invalidate my marriage? Will you continue to allow the suppression of speech, letting a muscle beat up those you disagree with? Will you outlaw my religion? If I can't trust you with one of the Amendments then why the hell would I trust you with any of the others? We've already voluntarily surrendered enough of our rights as it is with the NSA spying thing.

Which is why I distinguish between rights and responsibilities.

I'm not intending to infringe on your rights. I am interested in how you handle your responsibilities. It's the point where what you do affects me is precisely where I get interested.

 

[agent00f]

lol, you don't even know what a clause is.

A noun clause is a clause.
A clause minimally consists of a noun and a verb.
"A well regulated militia" does not contain a verb.
It is not a clause.
It is not a noun clause.

Is that simple enough for you to understand, or do I also need to define some of those big tough words like "noun" and "verb"?

Regulate is a verb.

 

[glenn1]

Which is why I distinguish between rights and responsibilities.

I'm not intending to infringe on your rights. I am interested in how you handle your responsibilities. It's the point where what you do affects me is precisely where I get interested.

My responsibility is like that of any firearm owner. Don't use one to commit or abet a crime. Follow safety rules at the range while shooting. Store in a safe location that prevents access to thieves and children plus protects from hazards like fire. Don't brandish it in order to intimidate others. Always treat the weapon with the respect and care that it deserves for its capacity to inflict damage or death, don't treat shooting it like a game.

Basically everything I did to be responsible with firearms in the military I do now as a civilian. The main difference is that instead of thousands of hours a year carrying around a weapon, I'm lucky if I can get away to the range for an hour once or twice a year. Ive never even kept ammunition in my house and if I could keep the weapon at the range without incurring significant storage fees I probably would. Plus it's a really expensive and accurate albeit low caliber weapon suitable for match grade accuracy and I'm not sure if the custodians could resist putting a few rounds through it while it was ostensibly in "storage".

 

[Venix]

Regulate is a verb.

lol, you don't know what verbs are, either.

"regulated" is an adjective. Do you know what an adjective is, or do I need to explain that, too?

 

[agent00f]

Your attempts at using grammar incorrectly to support your wrong policy position are amusing but wrong. Read Heller to understand why. First as has already been stated the Court unanimously said the “the right of the people” refers to individuals. It's pretty much impossible to interpret it any other way,

As previously noted the "impossible" was interpreted law of the land until 2008. For clear example of "the people" used collectively, see 10th amendment.

More likely, the writers had no intended nuance either way, and "law" is a discipline of creating these distinction as fit for society.

how exactly would a collective "militia" claim or exercise a right to bear arms if the 2nd Amendment was limited to just it and not the individuals who collectively comprised the militia? No other right exists that way, for example the right to speech isn't limited to the collective "Press" but to the individual as reporters and citizens.

Like all other collective/group rights; you should just wiki this. If you want to be pedantic about the 1st, "the people" isn't actually used until group activities like assemble are brought up.

Also all this is literally right after the 3 positions were clarified as simply as possible. Individual right per se doesn't actually mean you as an individual get to own guns sans militia.

"Posting on an internet forum it's entirely confusing to use the legal terminology,"

 

[agent00f]

lol, you don't know what verbs are, either.

"regulated" is an adjective. Do you know what an adjective is, or do I need to explain that, too?

https://www.google.com/search?q=regulated

 

[ivwshane]

lol, you don't know what verbs are, either.

"regulated" is an adjective. Do you know what an adjective is, or do I need to explain that, too?

Actually, "well-regulated" is an adjective. "Regulated" by itself is a verb.

 

[agent00f]

Isn't this fun?

 

[ivwshane]

Isn't this fun?

No. Its simply a distraction from finding actual solutions.

I have said this here on this forum for many years and it continues to be true; you cannot have a rational discussion with a gun Nutter.

 

[Venix]

https://www.google.com/search?q=regulated

I'm having difficulty believing that someone is seriously this stupid.

Regulated can be either a verb or an adjective. In "well regulated militia," it is an adjective. There is no verb in "a well regulated militia."

Open a dictionary: Adj. 1. regulated - controlled or governed according to rule or principle or law; "well regulated industries"; "houses with regulated temperature"

Or read the Supreme Court's Heller opinion: "the adjective “well-regulated” implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training."

Or read this editorial: "that pesky adjective "well regulated."

 

[jackstar7]

My responsibility is like that of any firearm owner. Don't use one to commit or abet a crime. Follow safety rules at the range while shooting. Store in a safe location that prevents access to thieves and children plus protects from hazards like fire. Don't brandish it in order to intimidate others. Always treat the weapon with the respect and care that it deserves for its capacity to inflict damage or death, don't treat shooting it like a game.

Basically everything I did to be responsible with firearms in the military I do now as a civilian. The main difference is that instead of thousands of hours a year carrying around a weapon, I'm lucky if I can get away to the range for an hour once or twice a year. Ive never even kept ammunition in my house and if I could keep the weapon at the range without incurring significant storage fees I probably would. Plus it's a really expensive and accurate albeit low caliber weapon suitable for match grade accuracy and I'm not sure if the custodians could resist putting a few rounds through it while it was ostensibly in "storage".

Well, I'm not trying to deny you your right.

So the question is: are there limitations that could be placed upon gun ownership that are reasonable and rational?

I mean there already are restrictions... by why do those stand without much argument, yet anything new is immediately a non-starter?

 

[agent00f]

I'm having difficult believing that someone is seriously this stupid.

Regulated can be either a past tense verb or an adjective. In "well regulated militia," it is an adjective. There is no verb in "a well regulated militia."

Open a dictionary: Adj. 1. regulated - controlled or governed according to rule or principle or law; "well regulated industries"; "houses with regulated temperature"

Here's the entirety of the linked dictionary entry linked:

reg·u·late
ˈreɡyəˌlāt/
verb
past tense: regulated; past participle: regulated
control or maintain the rate or speed of (a machine or process) so that it operates properly.
"a hormone that regulates metabolism and organ function"
synonyms: control, adjust, manage
"the flow of the river has been regulated"
control or supervise (something, especially a company or business activity) by means of rules and regulations.
"the organization that regulates fishing in the region"
synonyms: supervise, police, monitor, check, check up on, be responsible for; More
set (a clock or other apparatus) according to an external standard.
Origin
...

---

Or from first entry:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/regulate

Full Definition of regulate
regulated regulating
transitive verb
1
a : to govern or direct according to rule
b (1) : to bring under the control of law or constituted authority (2) : to make regulations for or concerning <regulate the industries of a country>
2
: to bring order, method, or uniformity to <regulate one's habits>
3
: to fix or adjust the time, amount, degree, or rate of <regulate the pressure of a tire>
regulative play \-&#716;l&#257;-tiv\ adjective
regulatory play \-l&#601;-&#716;to&#775;r-&#275;\ adjective

====

Notice where it lists adjectival forms.

Perhaps you can explain the details & nuances of word forms to make this diversion even less pertinent.

 

[Venix]

Actually, "well-regulated" is an adjective. "Regulated" by itself is a verb.

Incorrect. "Regulated" can be an adjective. "Well-regulated" is also an adjective (a compound adjective, specifically).

 

[ivwshane]

Incorrect. "Regulated" can be an adjective. "Well-regulated" is also an adjective (a compound adjective, specifically).

You are failing. I already bailed you out and now you just quoted a business dictionary as support for your claim. Do you think a business dictionary is different than a standard dictionary? If you think they aren't different then why does it exist.

 

[Subyman]

Militia is a noun, just so we all agree.

 

[agent00f]

Incorrect. "Regulated" can be an adjective. "Well-regulated" is also an adjective (a compound adjective, specifically).

Just FYI, I only posted the last 5 or whatever posts on this as performance theater to see how utterly pointless this can get. You're clearly a smart guy, and it would be much better for all involved to use that for comments substantive/pertinent to the actual topic.

 

[SlowSpyder]

No. Its simply a distraction from finding actual solutions.

I have said this here on this forum for many years and it continues to be true; you cannot have a rational discussion with a gun Nutter.

What is your rational argument for stricter gun regulation than that which is already in place?

Personally I'd like to see background checks on all gun sales. Without that the background check system is very easy to get around. Other than that, I'd probably like to see less regulation, if any change.

 

[Fenixgoon]

You are failing. I already bailed you out and now you just quoted a business dictionary as support for your claim. Do you think a business dictionary is different than a standard dictionary? If you think they aren't different then why does it exist.

It's funny because venix is right.

Even "regulated" by itself can be an adjective. And "running" can be used as a noun (gerund).

The electricity coming from the wall outlet has a regulated voltage. A well-regulated voltage has a tolerance of +- 1VAC (i'm just pulling that number out of my ass btw). In both cases regulated is an adjective.

Running is fun. Running is a gerund (noun form of a verb) used as the subject.


Anyway, to give a quick breakdown:

the independent clause is "(the) right shall not be infringed". this is a single complete thought that can stand by itself if all other parts of the text are removed.

"a well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of the free state" cannot stand on its own grammatically.

and if we clarify - whose right? the people's.
what right? to keep and bear arms
why? a well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state...

anyway, if you do some google-fu, you can find english experts on both sides of the aisle - some will say that it limits arms to just the militia, others will say it is obvious it includes the people in general.

what i find interesting (and this is the case of many things), is that something like this should be factually objective, and yet multiple "experts" can come to dramatically different conclusions about its interpretation.

if you just scribbled this down on a piece of paper (and it weren't the US constitution), i could almost guarantee you that a room full of english experts would come to a definitive conclusion about the interpretation of the text.
----------------------------------------------------------

and to make my own contribution to the discussion - i'd be all for universal background checks (FFL and private sales) as long as they are made easy and painless. what does that mean? opening up NICS to individuals in the form of a website and/or phone app where you can run someone's DL info and SSN to check the NICS database. it simply comes back as a pass/fail so as to avoid divulging otherwise privileged information.

the above would work for the same reason why netflix works so well - it makes something so easy that people won't bother with the alternative of performing an illegal sale. or why torrenting game of thrones is so popular (versus a legal/legitimate channel)

 

[agent00f]

What is your rational argument for stricter gun regulation than that which is already in place?

Personally I'd like to see background checks on all gun sales. Without that the background check system is very easy to get around. Other than that, I'd probably like to see less regulation, if any change.

The crux of the gun/violence problem is that the victims are urban/poor/minorities while the beneficiaries/lobby are rural/better-off whites.

In practice, the law/ruling as it stands basically exports violence, and localities are largely helpless to do much about it.

 

[Venix]

Just FYI, I only posted the last 5 or whatever posts on this as performance theater to see how utterly pointless this can get. You're clearly a smart guy, and it would be much better for all involved to use that for comments substantive/pertinent to the actual topic.

Good show. I'm usually better at realizing that I'm being trolled.

I suppose you're right, though. I really enjoy trading insults and arguing over irrelevant shit, but on a single-threaded forum like this it can easily derail the thread.

 

[agent00f]

It's funny because venix is right.

Even "regulated" by itself can be an adjective. And "running" can be used as a noun (gerund).

The electricity coming from the wall outlet has a regulated voltage. A well-regulated voltage has a tolerance of +- 1VAC (i'm just pulling that number out of my ass btw). In both cases regulated is an adjective.

Running is fun. Running is a gerund (noun form of a verb) used as the subject.


Anyway, to give a quick breakdown:

the independent clause is "(the) right shall not be infringed". this is a single complete thought that can stand by itself if all other parts of the text are removed.

"a well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of the free state" cannot stand on its own grammatically.

and if we clarify - whose right? the people's.
what right? to keep and bear arms
why? a well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state...

anyway, if you do some google-fu, you can find english experts on both sides of the aisle - some will say that it limits arms to just the militia, others will say it is obvious it includes the people in general.

what i find interesting (and this is the case of many things), is that something like this should be factually objective, and yet multiple "experts" can come to dramatically different conclusions about its interpretation.

if you just scribbled this down on a piece of paper (and it weren't the US constitution), i could almost guarantee you that a room full of english experts would come to a definitive conclusion about the interpretation of the text.

The argument that it includes everyone outside the context of the militia makes no sense until you believe the founders were fond of arbitrarily inserting frivolous content into the constitution.

It's obvious why people make that argument, it just makes no sense.

and to make my own contribution to the discussion - i'd be all for universal background checks (FFL and private sales) as long as they are made easy and painless. what does that mean? opening up NICS to individuals in the form of a website and/or phone app where you can run someone's DL info and SSN to check the NICS database. it simply comes back as a pass/fail so as to avoid divulging otherwise privileged information.

the above would work for the same reason why netflix works so well - it makes something so easy that people won't bother with the alternative of performing an illegal sale. or why torrenting game of thrones is so popular (versus a legal/legitimate channel)

The problem is really with the sheer ubiquity of guns in this country, so much that baddies are expected to have one. Then anyone who might deal with baddies want one and it's off to the arms race.

Also if someone really wants a gun here, they can fairly easily get one.