Ok, now you've changed your mind again. A moment ago you said it would infringe their rights if their bazookas were taken away. Can you just pick one position and stick to it, please.

]

Do Americans have the right to bear bazookas or not ? Please just answer the question. It's a yes or no. And why is it more absurd than asking if they have the right to bear any other kind of weapon?

So, you are changing your answer now and think Americans have the right to bear bazookas? (According to the 2nd amendment.)

(If it's just because they are illegal then we can just make any gun we want illegal and voilà, no infringement.)

Tiff, my question is: Please answer it.

Why can we confiscate these weapons without infringing the 2nd amendment? — Baden

So what's your answer if not that?

It is because it makes it an unfair fight with anyone, law or lawless. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

How is it unfair if both sides have the same weapon? E.g. a machine gun or bazooka?

I'm not presuming an answer. I want to know what you think. Just tell me your reason. Why can we confiscate these weapons without infringing the 2nd amendment?

OK, Tiff, just my impression, but I really don't want to talk about you personally. We can do that by PM. :kiss:

I asked you why it's not an infringement to ban machine guns and bazookas etc. and to take them away from those who are in possession of them.

But you have to understand that I never saw my 2nd amendment right being taken away the first time. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

(I'm not going to try to debate your personal situation. I would trust you with a gun. That's not what this is about.)

On it's face, no. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Why?

Oh common, dude...Is it an infringement of 2nd amendment rights in general?

(That you Americans, not just you personally, cannot legally purchase a machine gun, bazooka etc. You know what I mean, Tiff. It's a simple question.)

(And stop conflating legal and states' rights with constitutional rights. The legal rules change over time and from state to state, obviously. The 2nd amendment hasn't changed since it was introduced and that's what we are talking about.)

The slippery slope has taken another slide down in regards to the 2nd ammendment right by Deerfield, — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Just answer the question, please. Is it an infringment on your 2nd amendment right that you can't?

Is it an infringement that you cannot own a machine gun or a bazooka? Would you like those in the hands of the general public too? — Baden

"The right to bear arms" does not equal "The right to bear every kind of arms" = No infringement whatsoever.

No, it's not at all for the reasons I gave above. Now answer my question. Is it an infringement that you cannot own a machine gun or a bazooka? Would you like those in the hands of the general public too?

All this whining about rights. How about the right to walk down the street without the possibility of some lunatic with an AR15 coming the other way at you? :vomit:

I mean, aren't normal rifles and regular guns enough for you? You manage to kill each other already in huge numbers just with those.

It's your perverse interpretation of the right that's the issue. You don't have the right to bear any arms you want otherwise you would have the right to bear machine guns and bazookas etc. Are you complaining about not having the right to a machine gun. Is that an infringement on your 2nd amendment right?

First of all, it's only assault weapons, which are a bloody menace and should all be put in a pile and burnt anyway seeing as you are incapable of keeping them in the hands of people who are going to use them responsible. Second of all, it's one town. Kudos to them for standing up for common sense and decency.

Being Jewish or not being Jewish is not going to make his arguments any better or worse. Nor does it necessarily make him biased. There are Jewish people on both sides of this debate. And that goes as a general principle for all religious or non-religious here (or of whatever culture). Stick to the arguments. Personal stuff will be deleted.

Are you Jewish by any chance? — charleton

I didn't want to get involved in this discussion. But this is irrelevant. Play the ball not the man (even if your opponent won't).

There aren't that many of them around these days. In South East Asia at least.

OK, well, maybe you can say why you think that's the case.

:pray: And I guess you may have seen Ken Robinson's Ted Talk.

I feel like this is like my post, but with a red hot chili pepper thrown in. :)

It's a good question. I was never asked anything that general in any interview I attended for a position in the field, but if I were I'd give a two-fold answer. First of all, ideally, the primary purpose of education is to develop and nurture the individual along the lines of his or her major talents while providing a broad base of shared skills and abilities that allow he or she to function productively and happily (in a holistic rather than simply a commercial sense) in society. However, in practice, education often functions primarily to produce individuals who fit into predetermined social slots that allow them to be productive in society (in a commercial rather than a holistic sense) regardless of their major talents or abilities.

I saw the latter philosophy at work in the last university I worked at where engineering/science and business accounted for over 75% of all courses and was growing in proportion, while the arts and humanities, and social sciences that made up the rest were continually shrinking away. Students then were being funneled into courses for economic reasons irregardless of who they were as people and who they wanted to become. Sad.

*Shrug* I didn't think it was too much to ask that a non-far right site be used as a source for an accusation of terrorism against a left-wing group. Horowitz is an Islamophobe at the very least (though I dealt with the information anyway). But, whatever, I'm happy to move on to a less controversial topic. It's not worth banging on about I suppose.

Anyway, I'm happy to move on from this. It's a dead end.

You need to go and read the preceding discussion.

To put it another way, would you consider news that came from a left-wing website that explicitly set out to attack the right reliable?
— Baden

Yes, in conjunction with right wing sources on the same topics. — Thorongil

Obviously the point of the question was to establish a principle we both abide by. i.e. if he would not accept my left-wing sources without corresponding right-wing sources, I should not accept his right-wing sources without corresponding left-wing ones. Understand? Thorongil, however, is a one way street.

You really are an odd individual. You expect us to take your sources as reliable and even accuse us of committing fallacies when we don't accept them, and then scream indignantly at every source we present as if somehow your biased sources are fine when you won't even give our sources a second look. The level of hypocrisy is so farcically high that there's nowhere else to go with the discussion. So, if your goal was to shut this thread of argument down, you've succeeded.

CAIR? Are you serious? I almost suspect I'm being trolled at this point. — Thorongil

David Horowitz? Are you serious? I suspect I'm being trolled at this point.

BB was just trolling. He refers to all the mods as janitors. He needs some new material. He doesn't have anything to add to this conversation.

I did explain this several times. He keeps getting confused over the issue of reliability of information which pertains to the likely level of truth in a source and a specific determination of the truth of a particular argument or claim based on its source. I don't think he's ever going to get it tbh.

“Horowitz has gone even further than his conspiracy-minded colleagues by alleging that Islamic extremism has infiltrated our education system, beginning in kindergarten.” Both Robert Spencer’s Jihad Watch and the conspiracy-laden FrontPage Magazine are projects of Horowitz’s Freedom Center."

http://www.islamophobia.org/islamophobic-individuals/david-horowitz/83-david-horowitz.html

Ad hom. Genetic fallacy. (According to your definitions). And let's add in (disingenuous) "appeal to authority".

No, go to hell. This is becoming farcical. You know very well what the left wing position on BLM is and where one might easily find it. I'm not going to submit to such a ludicrous demand. — Thorongil

Have you blown a fuse or something? You said I cannot trust your source unless it's backed up by a left-wing source. So, your source as it stands is unreliable. That's not my problem.