Active shooter Virginia Beach Municipal Center

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.

osupsycho

Sheriff
A/V Subscriber
Apr 20, 2005
3,877
2,392
1,743
Valhalla
#61
Thanks for the reply, I really do appreciate your candor! I know my post is a novel, so no worries if you don't make it through it. I just love talking about this stuff with good people in a nice manner (both of us are Cowboys after all haha).

I think you hit on some very good. For example, I think you are dead on when you say we, as a society, need to be honest with ourselves about why one would have an abortion. I completely and wholeheartedly believe that there is not one woman out there that gets an abortion with malicious intent. With that said, I do think abortion is wrong and should be banned. I don't say this because I care what someone else does with their body, rather I don't think any innocent life should be extinguished. Admittedly, I come at this topic with the rational that a fetus becomes a person at some point, the exact point is debatable but I think children born prematurely shows that it is not at birth, so I would rather err on the side of caution when it comes to taking any life. Clearly, I don't think banning abortion by itself is a win, I think you are 100% right that education, and I would argue the reinstallation of a sense of responsibility in men, are critical steps that must be taken. I also think there needs to be serious reforms to our adoption and foster care system to ensure that unwanted babies are given the best life possible. However, I get uncomfortable when the argument is made that abortion is right because the baby isn't wanted so it will therefor have a less quality life because I don't think we can define what is a quality life and what is not (not saying you made that argument). I agree, punishing the the women would be a massive and detrimental mistake that should be pushed back on. However, I would caution and ask that we don't judge a perspective on an issue by it's extreme, as either abortion is right or it is not and we should pursue the truth, as that is all that matters in the end.

With regards to guns, I agree that we would be much safer without guns on the streets (no one can argue this point). However, I think this problem is incredibly tricky, as there is multiple levels to it. The first being, what would decrease gun violence? Well, getting the guns off the street and/or making them less powerful should do it.T hen you run into the issue of how should we go about accomplishing that? I believe there is validity to the claim that the passage of a law to turn guns in would result in only good, law abiding citizens turning in their guns. Well that does us no good because then there is a disproportion between the number of guns in the possession of people willing to break the law and good law abiding citizens, which could result in more deadly mass shootings. Then there's the perspective that confiscation is a viable option, however, I believe that is a massive undertaking that would result in many fire fights between law enforcement and gun owners, as many gun owners would view it as the government going tyrannical. Honestly, I just don't know what policy could accomplish the removal of guns, which then makes you wonder if decreasing the power of the guns is a viable. However, that would have a minuscule affect since there are still so many powerful guns already on the streets. I do agree that background checks are a good option and there are small undertakings that could help a little, but nothing that would truly curb gun violence. Regardless, lets assume there is a way to remove guns from the streets (very well could be), we then must ask why did we allow guns in the first place (same thought process as G.K. Chesterton's fence). I completely disagree that guns were granted to us to protect our families from home invaders. I think that is a baseless argument. However, our Constitution does say that our 2nd amendment is to help us push back if our government goes tyrannical, another check and balance if you will. Which then raises the question, is it still possible for our government to still go tyrannical? I personally believe with how nasty and polarizing our politics have become, it is very much possible that our government could become tyrannical, which makes me wonder if the removal of that check and balance is a good move long-term because a tyrannical government would cause exponentially more deaths than our current gun violence. Not saying nothing should be done, just saying it is extremely complicated.

Also, I really can't speak to Oklahoma legislation, as I currently live in DC and have failed miserably when it comes to tracking OK's legislation.
On the gun discussion, even if we did somehow get all guns off the streets how could we keep it that way? I mean drugs are illegal and anyone of us could get them with money and time. Funny thing is that to stop more guns coming in with that scenario we would need stronger borders...
 

CaliforniaCowboy

Federal Marshal
Oct 15, 2003
15,866
2,503
1,743
So Cal
#62
I personally don't care what solution that people want to implement in their States for either abortion banning or gun banning ....

just keep the federal government out of both. It is a people's choice issue, and people in San Francisco should have zero say-so what people in Montana want to do, on either issue.

Neither issue warrants federal tyranny and oppression.
 
Jul 20, 2018
1,529
232
143
77539
#63
I personally don't care what solution that people want to implement in their States for either abortion banning or gun banning ....

just keep the federal government out of both. It is a people's choice issue, and people in San Francisco should have zero say-so what people in Montana want to do, on either issue.

Neither issue warrants federal tyranny and oppression.
That's simply not true. The 2nd amendment affirms our right to gun ownership no matter what a state or municipality thinks. This has been upheld by the Supreme Court.
 
Sep 30, 2012
171
208
593
25
#64
On the gun discussion, even if we did somehow get all guns off the streets how could we keep it that way? I mean drugs are illegal and anyone of us could get them with money and time. Funny thing is that to stop more guns coming in with that scenario we would need stronger borders...
I agree. It has been demonstrated through numerous examples that it is nearly impossible to prevent someone from getting their hands on a product that is relatively easily produced (i.e., produced elsewhere and smuggled in). However, I think it is a moot point until a viable option method for removing guns from the streets is discovered. Once again, I completely agree with you, that's just not a frontline issue for me, since I haven't heard of a viable option for removing guns from the streets yet. I also agree that we need to established good border security, however, that's a different discussion.
 

CaliforniaCowboy

Federal Marshal
Oct 15, 2003
15,866
2,503
1,743
So Cal
#65
That's simply not true. The 2nd amendment affirms our right to gun ownership no matter what a state or municipality thinks. This has been upheld by the Supreme Court.
well... I SAID, that I don't care what people do in their States, I said nothing about the constitutionality of their actions.

Also, the Supreme Beings "upholding" anything is not the final word. They've upheld slavery, and a number of other things that have been overturned.

Constitutional reform of the Judicial System is long overdue, IMHO.
 

CaliforniaCowboy

Federal Marshal
Oct 15, 2003
15,866
2,503
1,743
So Cal
#66
I think it is a moot point until a viable option method for removing guns from the streets is discovered. .
okay, this statement is just plain spooky... that anybody in America, or that calls themselves American would ever consider being against liberty and freedom.

I will never ever in a million lifetimes understand why some people insist on remaining ignorant about liberty and freedom.
 
Sep 30, 2012
171
208
593
25
#67
okay, this statement is just plain spooky... that anybody in America, or that calls themselves American would ever consider being against liberty and freedom.

I will never ever in a million lifetimes understand why some people insist on remaining ignorant about liberty and freedom.
I would ask that you read the whole post in context and probably my previous post too. I am not saying the removal of guns is what I would advocate for (it is absolutely not). That comment is saying the fact that we can't stop guns from coming across the boarder simply does not play a huge role in my thoughts on whether gun control is even viable because we can't remove them from the streets to start with. Please, keep in mind this is not even considering the "should."
 
Jul 20, 2018
1,529
232
143
77539
#68
well... I SAID, that I don't care what people do in their States, I said nothing about the constitutionality of their actions.

Also, the Supreme Beings "upholding" anything is not the final word. They've upheld slavery, and a number of other things that have been overturned.

Constitutional reform of the Judicial System is long overdue, IMHO.
Then why have a federal constitution? Just let all of the states do what they want?
 

CaliforniaCowboy

Federal Marshal
Oct 15, 2003
15,866
2,503
1,743
So Cal
#69
I would ask that you read the whole post in context and probably my previous post too. I am not saying the removal of guns is what I would advocate for (it is absolutely not). That comment is saying the fact that we can't stop guns from coming across the boarder simply does not play a huge role in my thoughts on whether gun control is even viable because we can't remove them from the streets to start with. Please, keep in mind this is not even considering the "should."
no sir, because it it a moot point even if we know of 1,000 ways to prevent guns from coming across the border.

I understand the defense of your statement, but it's discussions like those that keep the wacko's thinking that there is a chance to win their argument.. now if they could just solve that little problem, then folks would be willing to ban guns.

feeding the trolls serves no purpose, even under the guise of "being nice" to them.
 

CaliforniaCowboy

Federal Marshal
Oct 15, 2003
15,866
2,503
1,743
So Cal
#70
Then why have a federal constitution? Just let all of the states do what they want?
I believe this is a facetious question, but at the risk that you were asking seriously...

The federal constitution establishes the separation of powers, and establishes limits on the federal government, I believe they were allowed to do 18 things - among them establish trade, maintain an army and secure the borders (immigration)...
 
Sep 30, 2012
171
208
593
25
#71
no sir, because it it a moot point even if we know of 1,000 ways to prevent guns from coming across the border.

I understand the defense of your statement, but it's discussions like those that keep the wacko's thinking that there is a chance to win their argument.. now if they could just solve that little problem, then folks would be willing to ban guns.

feeding the trolls serves no purpose, even under the guise of "being nice" to them.
Here's my perspective, the removal of guns is not feasible and that can be demonstrated in countless ways. If we can demonstrate that, there is no need to defend the "if" gun removal was possible scenario (i.e., keeping guns off the streets). I view my perspective as giving no ground because I grant 0 possibility that guns can be removed from the streets in the first place. My point is purely, the issue of guns coming across the border is assuming the removal of guns, which in my opinion is impossible. Which raises the question, why debate a scenario that is contingent on the impossible happening? I hope I am explaining that clearly because I do believe that we are along very similar trains of thought, we're just missing.
 
Jul 20, 2018
1,529
232
143
77539
#72
I believe this is a facetious question, but at the risk that you were asking seriously...

The federal constitution establishes the separation of powers, and establishes limits on the federal government, I believe they were allowed to do 18 things - among them establish trade, maintain an army and secure the borders (immigration)...
Facetious? No way. I had you as a strict constitutionalist up until today.
 

CaliforniaCowboy

Federal Marshal
Oct 15, 2003
15,866
2,503
1,743
So Cal
#76
Ahh....good to see the prickishness of a Kalifornian come out. You can't seem to help yourself have a decent conversation with anyone.
oh, wonderful.... I'm prickish and can't have a decent conversation because you make statements that sound facetious and non-lucid. just freaking wonderful.

It always amazes me how another's lack of clarity somehow means I have problems. Don't we all just love it when folks run out of things to say and so they start making poignant remarks about others.

I have flat out stated repeatedly that I am a constitutionalist first, a conservative second, and don't "belong" to any Party.
 
Jul 20, 2018
1,529
232
143
77539
#77
oh, wonderful.... I'm prickish and can't have a decent conversation because you make statements that sound facetious and non-lucid. just freaking wonderful.

It always amazes me how another's lack of clarity somehow means I have problems. Don't we all just love it when folks run out of things to say and so they start making poignant remarks about others.

I have flat out stated repeatedly that I am a constitutionalist first, a conservative second, and don't "belong" to any Party.
You AREN'T a constitutionalist if you believe an f'n state can make a law banning guns.
 
Jul 20, 2018
1,529
232
143
77539
#78
You know it's a slow day on OP when Cali and okst1 are having to resort to arguing with each other... :D
We've argued before on the other forum. Kali, for some reason, becomes a prick when he knows he says something so stupid he can't defend it. He won't simply say he was wrong and move on. He knows what he's saying is unconstitutional about states making up their own laws about gun ownership but he'll never say so.
 

CaliforniaCowboy

Federal Marshal
Oct 15, 2003
15,866
2,503
1,743
So Cal
#79
We've argued before on the other forum. Kali, for some reason, becomes a prick when he knows he says something so stupid he can't defend it. He won't simply say he was wrong and move on. He knows what he's saying is unconstitutional about states making up their own laws about gun ownership but he'll never say so.
like I said the first time.... I DID NOT SAY THAT. YOU SAID IT, NOT ME.

I said I don't care what the citizens of those States do to themselves.

If they want to pass some unconstitutional law upon themselves, then so be it - no real skin off of my back.

My State passed a State Constitutional Amendment declaring marriage as between a man and woman - the Supreme Beings said CA couldn't do that - do you care?

Frankly, I don't think that the Constitution gives the Federal Government the authority to tell States how they define marriage.

The Supreme Beings ruled 5-4 over the complete banning of guns in Wash DC. Five to freaking four. If it had been 5-4 supporting a ban of guns, would it then be constitutional in your book?
 
Jul 20, 2018
1,529
232
143
77539
#80
like I said the first time.... I DID NOT SAY THAT. YOU SAID IT, NOT ME.

I said I don't care what the citizens of those States do to themselves.

If they want to pass some unconstitutional law upon themselves, then so be it - no real skin off of my back.

My State passed a State Constitutional Amendment declaring marriage as between a man and woman - the Supreme Beings said CA couldn't do that - do you care?

Frankly, I don't think that the Constitution gives the Federal Government the authority to tell States how they define marriage.

The Supreme Beings ruled 5-4 over the complete banning of guns in Wash DC. Five to freaking four. If it had been 5-4 supporting a ban of guns, would it then be constitutional in your book?
The topic is guns-not marriage. Adherence to the 2nd amendment (or any other amendment) is not decided by the states.