Nihil Obstat Posted May 31, 2011 Share Posted May 31, 2011 [quote name='jaime (the artist formerly known as hot stuff)' timestamp='1306852063' post='2248140'] Ok Josephine, let's take a look at your critical thinking and you can help me with the logic of it. I certainly agree with you on the Arinze cake analogy. I've eaten the Cardinal's baked goods and this is not his area of expertise. I mean twinkies have a better recipe than his chocolate truffle cake. But then you seem to be saying that when Archbishop Magliore is speaking at the UN in his official role as Vatican representative, that his opinion holds as much weight. That logic doesn't seem to hold water. Do you think that the Holy Father just randomly selects Vatican UN duty? Perhaps there is a a bucket with all the archbishops names and he just draws one from time to time? Msgr Eterova has litterbox duty Msgr Frezza is on garbage Magliore's got the UN!! Or would it make more sense that when Cardinal Arinze is speaking about cupcakes, we can take or leave his opinion. But when he is talking about interreligious matters, (his job for a long time) he is speaking on behalf of the Vatican and the Holy Father? Wouldn't the same be true for the person who was personally chosen by the pope to represent the Vatican in global issues? [/quote] It depends on whether or not that particular official is actually qualified to discuss gun control in all of its aspects. That would include crime, the criminal justice system, the finer points of self-defense, etc.. He's quite probably qualified to discuss some aspects, though he has no special charism preventing him from flawed judgement or outright error. Also, there is nothing whatsoever in his statement that is binding on the faithful as far as I could tell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ParadiseFound Posted May 31, 2011 Share Posted May 31, 2011 Not really related, but a British ex-policeman told me that they once found this guy who'd been collecting deactivated historic firearms (legally) for over 25 years. They checked his whole collection and it was all legit, apart from one gun which had some kind of rail on it where a sight could be attached (one of the previous owners of the gun had put it there, not him) and it was illegal to do that. They destroyed his entire collection. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winchester Posted May 31, 2011 Share Posted May 31, 2011 And since I am responsible for no gun deaths, the statistics don't apply to me. Gun control is pre-crime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winchester Posted May 31, 2011 Share Posted May 31, 2011 [quote name='ParadiseFound' timestamp='1306858827' post='2248184'] [s]Not really related, but a British ex-policeman told me that they once found this guy who'd been collecting deactivated historic firearms (legally) for over 25 years. They checked his whole collection and it was all legit, apart from one gun which had some kind of rail on it where a sight could be attached (one of the previous owners of the gun had put it there, not him) and it was illegal to do that. They destroyed his entire collection. [/s] A British ex-State thug told me about a time when he destroyed someone's private property under threat of death to the owner.[/quote] Fixed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ParadiseFound Posted May 31, 2011 Share Posted May 31, 2011 [quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1306860326' post='2248192'] Fixed. [/quote] Much more concise and accurate xD (except he didn't seem like a thug - he didn't even want to have the collection destroyed. He had a very 'just following orders' attitude (well, he [i]was[/i] a policeman after all ). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winchester Posted May 31, 2011 Share Posted May 31, 2011 [quote name='ParadiseFound' timestamp='1306865018' post='2248223'] Much more concise and accurate xD (except he didn't seem like a thug - he didn't even want to have the collection destroyed. He had a very 'just following orders' attitude (well, he [i]was[/i] a policeman after all ). [/quote] I am sympathetic to his feelings and forgot for a moment that individuals inhabit the positions of authority. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winchester Posted May 31, 2011 Share Posted May 31, 2011 (edited) [url="http://www.aimsurplus.com/product.aspx?item=F1SASL&name=Surplus+Arms+%26+Ammo+LOW15+Stripped+AR+Lower+Receiver&groupid=301&search=lower+receiver"]Cheap stripped lower receiver[/url] That's the same company the manufactures receivers for Spike's tactical. You will have to have it shipped to an FFL, but it's 60 dollars. And, once you have a lower receiver, go [url="http://akpartskits.com/"]here[/url] and purchase a kit--this can be shipped directly to your house. My stategery is to purchase a couple of stripped lowers and then save up for some nice uppers at my leisure. It will come with all the parts you need to complete an AR. The prices are as low as around 440. That's pretty good. You have to build it yourself, but there's videos about that [url="http://www.brownells.com/.aspx/lid=11004/guntechdetail/how_to_build_an_ar-15_video"]here[/url] and I've heard good things about them. You'll still need a few magazines. I recommend cheaperthandirt.com. You can build a complete AR for under 700 dollars, and your familiarity with the platform will make you a wiser gun owner. Of course, a cheap AK will last a long time. Also, the SKS is a very durable weapon and high quality for its price. umad, bro? Edited May 31, 2011 by Winchester Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rkwright Posted June 1, 2011 Share Posted June 1, 2011 [quote name='Amppax' timestamp='1306848623' post='2248130'] what are you talking about, i'm confused. I'm talking about the different interpretations scholars have given for the second amendment, some of which would seem to say that guns aren't [i]really [/i]an individual right, rather a collective one (as in, guns are allowed for the formation of militias). With that interpretation, seeing that we don't have a true militia anymore, it would stand to reason that guns are up for restrictions. However, looking at the amendment, it also seems that the founders would think we've already violated there text, as we don't have militias. Idk, i'm just throwing out random thoughts. *edit: dang it, didn't see you edit [/quote] have you read DC v. Heller? It seems your sources are a little outdated after that case (I think its either a 2009 or 2010 case). Heller will shed light on the collective rights/militia interpretation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don John of Austria Posted June 1, 2011 Share Posted June 1, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Amppax' timestamp='1306850324' post='2248136'] I would start by saying many would disagree with your first statement, i'm not positive that militias [i]are [/i]still necessary. [font="sans-serif"][size="2"] [/size][/font] [font="sans-serif"] [/font] [font="sans-serif"][size="2"]It seems, based on the text, that the founders assumed that militias are necessary (like you do), and that the right is based on that. However, I think it could be reasonably argued that they are not (although again, i'm not firmly set one way or the other on this). If militias are deemed no longer necessary, it seems logical to then conclude that guns are also no longer necessary, based on the amendment. But again, I think this would probably involve changing the amendment. I was merely pointing out that some have argued for gun control without a change to the amendment. [/size][/font] [/quote] First, I think he was giving an analysis of the Amendment from a grammar point of view. 2nd the Founders said in fact that they were necessary. Within the context of the Constitution there is no Wiggle room, they are necessary. You may believe that is no longer true, but speaking from the point of view of the Constitution, they are. And of course , i say again, now they are still necessary, shown by the tyranny of our current state. Edited June 1, 2011 by Don John of Austria Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaime Posted June 1, 2011 Share Posted June 1, 2011 [quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1306857364' post='2248180'] It depends on whether or not that particular official is actually qualified to discuss gun control in all of its aspects. That would include crime, the criminal justice system, the finer points of self-defense, etc.. He's quite probably qualified to discuss some aspects, though he has no special charism preventing him from flawed judgement or outright error. Also, there is nothing whatsoever in his statement that is binding on the faithful as far as I could tell. [/quote] And what is Magliore's expertise in? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don John of Austria Posted June 1, 2011 Share Posted June 1, 2011 [quote name='Don John of Austria' timestamp='1306857181' post='2248179'] Not really, since Time magazine started to cite Youtube as a source I don't think mush of thier reliablity. That number has no basis in reality. I doubt that there is any statistics available for 2010 yet at all. Refer to the following. http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2011/tables/11s0306.pdf as you can see there were fewer than 11000 murders commited with guns in any of the 4 years indicated. As I have already posted on this thread there are actually very few accidental gun deaths each year, less than a thousand. so that brings it up to about 12000.... IF the 31000 is accurate ( which it isn't, obviously) then that means that about 19000 legally justified killings happened last year... this translates into 19000 people who were engaged ina a violent crime were shot and killed, either by a civilian, or the police. In my opinion saying that more than those engaged in crime are killled 1 1/2 times more often than murderers and accidental deaths combineds is not a strong arguement against gun control. [/quote] *oops that should say for gun control Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted June 1, 2011 Share Posted June 1, 2011 (edited) [quote name='jaime (the artist formerly known as hot stuff) (the artist formerly known as hot stuff)' timestamp='1306893390' post='2248475'] And what is Magliore's expertise in? [/quote] Theology and canon law. ETA: Assuming you mean Celestino Migliore. Edited June 1, 2011 by Nihil Obstat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maximilianus Posted June 1, 2011 Share Posted June 1, 2011 [quote name='Laudate_Dominum' timestamp='1306847595' post='2248120'] I'm all about phasers. [/quote] I want the one with the compass on the stock and that thingy that tells time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don John of Austria Posted June 1, 2011 Share Posted June 1, 2011 [quote name='Maximilianus' timestamp='1306893948' post='2248483'] I want the one with the compass on the stock and that thingy that tells time. [/quote] Phasers psshhh.... Railguns are where its at. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaime Posted June 1, 2011 Share Posted June 1, 2011 [quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1306893825' post='2248480'] Theology and canon law. ETA: Assuming you mean Celestino Migliore. [/quote] source? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now