Quote from: The Buddha on October 08, 2008, 07:36:06 PM
I dont see how democrats who want to take away your guns are seen as taking away your freedom, while republicans who want to take away your right to have an abortion are seen as not taking away a freedom ...
Yea yea second amendment and this and that ... besides the point ... the question is about a freedom.
Cool.
Buddha.

Republicans, or Conservatives don't see it as letting the woman choose to have an abortion or not.  We see it as murdering an innocent child.  It's not an issue of the woman's rights.  It's an issue of murder.

Democrats, or the left in general see it as a choice because they tend to not think of it as a life yet.  This 'non' life is in the woman, and it's her body and she can do what she wants with it.

Republicans see this living being inside a mother as a full fledged human being, and the mother is just a host for this child to develop.  Kinda like how parents harbor their children until they can make it on their own in the 'real world', it's the same deal.

So to sum it up.  R - to allow murder or not.  D - to let the woman do what she wants with her own body.

Why people would see it differently is whether they see killing the unborn child as murder or not.  I'm all for strong women...my wife runs the house.  I'd always give her the right to do what ever she wants, but abortion is affecting another person, and even true libertarians should see that as wrong, because it's affecting another person.

Hopefully this makes things a little more clear.

Well said Quicktaco.

I've always thought it rather harsh that a person (the Baby) should pay with it's life, for the mistake that someone else made.

BeSafe
PJ

Well ... guns are meant to kill people too ... so you owning a gun is taking away the other person's right to life. He may be a criminal ... but ...
Anyway, I am anti abortion, but I could not think of a better example when I posted that argument. I have to ... please gimme some time.
Cool.
Buddha.

Guns protect people.  That's what people that want guns, want them for (besides hunting).  You have the right to protect yourself if someone is infringing on your rights to live.  If I had 20 people running at me trying to kill me, I wouldn't think twice about shooting them all.

R - want guns for protection (and hunting).  D - want to get rid of guns so criminals don't use them.

It's proven that getting rid of guns from the citizens just makes things worse...like I said earlier, England, D.C. and Australia.  Republicans want to take away guns from the criminals just as much as Democrats do.  However, they don't want their right as a law abiding citizen, to own a gun for protection from others, and from a corrupt government, to be taken away to do it.

Hope that makes a little more since, also.

How about rape or incest? The woman shouldn't have a choice?  You'll hold a woman hostage for nine months as the "host" (as you put it) for a criminal's fetus?  

Are there circumstances in which you would allow the government to say what YOU must do with YOUR body for nine months and with your financial resources for potentially eighteen years after that?  I think not.

A child breathes on its own.  A fetus does not.  There is a difference.  The Jewish religion makes that important distinction.  When a woman miscarries at 2 weeks, she may not even know it.  When a woman miscarries at 12 weeks, she may know it, but we don't have a funeral.  We also don't blame God for "murdering" the "child."  It's NOT a black-and-white issue.

I will agree with you on late-term abortions when the mother's life is not endangered (and so does almost every politician).  They should not be allowed.  The fetus is viable at that point, and that makes a big difference to me.

And your distinction is wrong.  Not all Republicans are anti-choice.  Not all Democrats are pro-choice.  Not all conservatives are anti-choice.  Not all liberals are pro-choice.

India has very very low violent crime ... and we dont have any guns at all ... not for criminals, not for normal people. In fact not even cops ... they have these huge single shot rifle. I've never seen any of them use it.
I wont say its a 100 % without merit, but I am all for that gene coding and just abandoning the current gun models. Guns have to be 100 electronic. It will fire in your hand, not fire in anyone elses.

The guns that currently are in the hands of criminals will either have to be destroyed with time or as each gun gets used in multiple murders cos they cant get em any more ... so they cant toss it after a murder ... they get more and more pricey, and the ones that are caught with the gun now have to answer to several murders because the gun ties them to it.

Guns ... there is several million of them out there in hands of criminals. They have to be phased out. we will offer a gun trade in. Swap yours for the current model with gene code triggers. If you're a criminal you wont, and that gun now becomes very very valuable ... you cant use it, but its $$$ ... slowly, you have to make bullets for it ... but still its unknown to the govt, and slowly ... there will be so many genecoded guns out there ... with honest people, you cannot use this to threaten anyone ... they will grill a few 1000 holes in you, your gun while valuable will lead back to you pronto, and you will be outgunned.

Guns deter other guns. the way to stop it is to put lots of guns out there that cannot be mis used and are ready to use in each honest man's and woman's hands.

Criminals will have a dwindling supply of guns and will have to fight each other for the little scraps ... and those scraps will be woefully under powered.
Sorta like having a model T and using it to commute 90 miles 1 way ... like me.

Guns have to be in the hands of responsible people to stop irresponsible people. Gene coding will just make sure that happens.

Cool.
Buddha.

Quote from: trumpetguy on October 09, 2008, 08:39:51 AM
How about rape or incest? The woman shouldn't have a choice?  You'll hold a woman hostage for nine months as the "host" (as you put it) for a criminal's fetus? 

Are there circumstances in which you would allow the government to say what YOU must do with YOUR body for nine months and with your financial resources for potentially eighteen years after that?  I think not.

A child breathes on its own.  A fetus does not.  There is a difference.  The Jewish religion makes this important distinction.  When a woman miscarries at 2 weeks, she may not even know it.  When a woman miscarries at 12 weeks, she may know it, but we don't have a funeral.  We also don't blame God for "murdering" the "child."  It's NOT a black-and-white issue.

I will agree with you on late-term abortions when the mother's life is not endangered (and so does almost every politician).  They should not be allowed.  The fetus is viable at that point, and that makes a big difference to me.

And your distinction is wrong.  Not all Republicans are anti-choice.  Not all Democrats are pro-choice.  Not all conservatives are anti-choice.  Not all liberals are pro-choice.

The child still didn't do anything wrong.  It's another person that is being murdered.  The child is just as innocent in this situation as you are.  So if you were come to and murdered to get rid of this situation, would that be alright?  I don't think so.

Yeah, it's a horrible situation, but it still doesn't take away the fact that it's still murder.  If they don't want to take care of the child afterward, then they can always give it up for adoption.  Many people will actually have the child of a rape, and are glad that they did, because it brought a shining light to a horrible situation.

You bring up miscarriages...Miscarriages are not at the hands of humans.  The child was not capable of making it full term on it's own, and therefor, was more similar to a natural death, than that of murder.

Does a living child, once born, eat on it's own?  Does it go to work and bring home money so that it can have a roof over it's head?  It's not capable of taking care of itself, so is it not a child?  The elderly that can't breathe without the aid of oxygen...should they be killed, cause they can't breathe on their own?

I said in general, not all and all.  Get over yourself.

For a lot of people, it is a black and white issue.  It's very clear, what is right and what is wrong.

Quote from: The Buddha on October 09, 2008, 08:50:56 AM
India has very very low violent crime ... and we dont have any guns at all ... not for criminals, not for normal people. In fact not even cops ... they have these huge single shot rifle. I've never seen any of them use it.
I wont say its a 100 % without merit, but I am all for that gene coding and just abandoning the current gun models. Guns have to be 100 electronic. It will fire in your hand, not fire in anyone elses.

The guns that currently are in the hands of criminals will either have to be destroyed with time or as each gun gets used in multiple murders cos they cant get em any more ... so they cant toss it after a murder ... they get more and more pricey, and the ones that are caught with the gun now have to answer to several murders because the gun ties them to it.

Guns ... there is several million of them out there in hands of criminals. They have to be phased out. we will offer a gun trade in. Swap yours for the current model with gene code triggers. If you're a criminal you wont, and that gun now becomes very very valuable ... you cant use it, but its $$$ ... slowly, you have to make bullets for it ... but still its unknown to the govt, and slowly ... there will be so many genecoded guns out there ... with honest people, you cannot use this to threaten anyone ... they will grill a few 1000 holes in you, your gun while valuable will lead back to you pronto, and you will be outgunned.

Guns deter other guns. the way to stop it is to put lots of guns out there that cannot be mis used and are ready to use in each honest man's and woman's hands.

Criminals will have a dwindling supply of guns and will have to fight each other for the little scraps ... and those scraps will be woefully under powered.
Sorta like having a model T and using it to commute 90 miles 1 way ... like me.

Guns have to be in the hands of responsible people to stop irresponsible people. Gene coding will just make sure that happens.

Cool.
Buddha.

In a perfect world, I totally agree with you (for the most part anyways).  If this were a viable option, I could see your situation working as described.  But it would be highly unlikely that these mechanics would be un-get-around-able.  Like I said earlier, guns are extremely simple pieces of machinery.  I could make one in one afternoon if I really wanted.  Yes it would be crude, but it would fire a bullet.  What would stop criminals from doing this?  Necessity leads to innovations.  It wouldn't stop criminals.  It might just make it a little harder.

I see what you're talking about in India.  If guns weren't ever invented, it would be the same deal.  Lots let crime in that fashion.  But they do exist, and will always exist.  I'm surprised that India hasn't had many come into the country by now. 

The down side to the gene coded gun, is if a person needed to defend themselves or someone else, and had a gun, but wasn't coded to them, then it's useless.  Or firing at a gun range, or for hunting, sons, or friends couldn't borrow someone elses gun.  These are some cercumstances, that I'm sure could be addressed somehow, but at the end of the day, bullets fire very easily.

Without a gun, I could fire a bullet in less than ten minutes, with decent accuracy, and damage...in a few different ways at that.

I don't think making the gun itself harder to use is really going to do anything.  But like i said, in a perfect world, I could see what you are talking about, and I would, for the most part, agree with you.

Quote from: quiktaco on October 09, 2008, 08:53:37 AM
For a lot of people, it is a black and white issue.  It's very clear, what is right and what is wrong.

And those people (like you) who think that this issue is black and white can do whatever they want in terms of choosing an abortion.  But for those same people to attempt to legislate based on THEIR religious beliefs is wrong.  That part IS black and white.

Quote from: trumpetguy on October 09, 2008, 09:16:39 AM

Quote from: quiktaco on October 09, 2008, 08:53:37 AM
For a lot of people, it is a black and white issue.  It's very clear, what is right and what is wrong.

And those people (like you) who think that this issue is black and white can do whatever they want in terms of choosing an abortion.  But for those same people to attempt to legislate based on THEIR religious beliefs is wrong.  That part IS black and white.

We don't see it as our religious beliefs that are determining things.  We feel that it is murder.  Murder is wrong, and therefor abortion is wrong.

Like I said, most of the left doesn't see it as murder, so they feel that it's our religion that's telling us that it's murder.  It's true that our religion confirms the fact that it's murder, but it's not our religion that is making us know that it's murder, and know that it's wrong.

Quiktaco: Rape is very emotionally traumatic ... without that trauma it would just be ... sex. Then a woman has to take the baby to term ... then if she gave up the baby to adoption ... you cannot imagine the pain ... anyone who offers adoption as an alternative to abortion is a moron. And anyone who suggests abortion to a normal pregnancy - non rape is a murderer.

You think a criminal is going to make his own gun and then make his own bullets and commit a crime ... when the person he is pointing his gun at could well have a gene locked gun that can hit the target ... on the nose ... no problem ...
Now if he can make such a nice gun, maybe he can make a safe and honest living as a machinist, or a blacksmith ... I have some steering stems I need him to machine up and these carriers I need to make. Good money paid, 40-50 bucks a pop. Takes under 30 mins for the first few, then maybe under 15 mins ... depends on how good he is.
Guns are cheap and can be handled and used by anyone with no education/training. Take that away, and the threat of guns in the hands of criminals dies with it if not immediately, atleast a few years from now. Took 100's of years for this problem to appear, cant make it go away in a day ... or even a decade.

You can fire a bullet in 10 mins ... what if you were facing someone who had a very very clean sophisticated modern gun ... he prolly could bash your head in before you start firing your bullet without a gun.

I am all for gun control by putting a gun in the hands of every man, and woman who want one. It just will be useless to all others. Control by flooding the market. When everyone is super ... no one will be super.

Cool.
Buddha.

Quote from: The Buddha on October 09, 2008, 09:32:57 AM
Quiktaco: Rape is very emotionally traumatic ... without that trauma it would just be ... sex. Then a woman has to take the baby to term ... then if she gave up the baby to adoption ... you cannot imagine the pain ... anyone who offers adoption as an alternative to abortion is a moron. And anyone who suggests abortion to a normal pregnancy - non rape is a murderer.

You think a criminal is going to make his own gun and then make his own bullets and commit a crime ... when the person he is pointing his gun at could well have a gene locked gun that can hit the target ... on the nose ... no problem ...
Now if he can make such a nice gun, maybe he can make a safe and honest living as a machinist, or a blacksmith ... I have some steering stems I need him to machine up and these carriers I need to make. Good money paid, 40-50 bucks a pop. Takes under 30 mins for the first few, then maybe under 15 mins ... depends on how good he is.
Guns are cheap and can be handled and used by anyone with no education/training. Take that away, and the threat of guns in the hands of criminals dies with it if not immediately, atleast a few years from now. Took 100's of years for this problem to appear, cant make it go away in a day ... or even a decade.

You can fire a bullet in 10 mins ... what if you were facing someone who had a very very clean sophisticated modern gun ... he prolly could bash your head in before you start firing your bullet without a gun.

I am all for gun control by putting a gun in the hands of every man, and woman who want one. It just will be useless to all others. Control by flooding the market. When everyone is super ... no one will be super.

Cool.
Buddha.

I understand rape is a very emotionally charged issue concerning abortions.  When I was younger, before I really thought about it, I used to think that it would be alright in those situations.  Now that I'm older and actually understand what is going on.  I know that it is not right.  It's not right in any circumstance.  There's no reason that anyone can come up with that will justify the killing of an innocent baby.  It's just wrong.

Yes, I do think criminals would make their own guns.  It's not all that difficult.  Look at all the innovations in prisons.  Shanks, tattoo machines, crossbows, GUNS, and the list goes on.

I do think that your idea of gene coded guns could be a possibility, but I don't see the practicality, because I don't see how it would stop anything, that's all.  I could see how it would stop accidental firings, but it wouldn't stop people that wanted to shoot a gun.

I'm not saying that it would take 10 minutes to fire a bullet.  I meant that it would take me about 10 minutes to rig something up that could fire a bullet.  From that point, it would be just point and shoot.

I do like your idea of gene coding.  If some instances could be address, it could very well work.  However, I just see too many obsticals, because of the sheer physics of bullets, and guns themselves.  There's just so much Potential Energy packed into a bullet, that they only take the right touch, and that Energy becomes Kinetic, and the bullet is fired.  If issues such as bullets don't fire without certain coding that it gets from a certain gun being held by a certain owner, then I could see it working.  But the cost of one coded bullet would be so astronomical.  I just don't see this as a viable option.  I think it would do more good to crack down harder on gangs to get guns out of their hands.

No coded bullet. Electronic trigger mechanism.
And making a gun ... if someone has that skill, They could make a living otherwise ... like making stems for me.
Cool.
Buddha.

Quote from: The Buddha on October 09, 2008, 11:15:02 AM
No coded bullet. Electronic trigger mechanism.
And making a gun ... if someone has that skill, They could make a living otherwise ... like making stems for me.
Cool.
Buddha.

That's my point though.  If the bullets are normal bullets, then the potential energy is too easily released.  They can be fired in other ways than using a specific gun.

Drug trafficing/sales, and theft bring in a lot more money a lot faster than using these skills.  And these people probably don't have the drive to harness the skills for a career.  Especially when they're making so much money doing easier things.

It wouldn't be hard to make a sufficient gun that could use the bullets that would be used in these other guns.  They may not be as great as manufactured guns, but they'd get the bullet out of the barrel.

I think for the most part, we agree on these coded guns, but I only disagree with the fact that the bullets could still be used, and because of that, not too much would change.

Maybe the bullets for the gene coded gun should be oval or triangular. Not a lot, just slightly. and the barrel too.
The criminals just have to make everything ... kinda like GS500 people do ...
Cool.
Buddha.

I understand where you are trying to go with it, but bullets spin as they come out of the barrel.   And that still wouldn't stop them from being easily set off in some other contraption.  Maybe there could be innovation that could work, but I think the main thing would have to be in bullet technology, and not gun technology.  Gun's don't fire without bullets.

Anyways.  I think we should get off this subject, since it kinda went astray from the presidential race.  Good discussion though.

Yea triangular or oval can have a twist too. Like I said, not a lot, just a little, if its a serious triangle it will have massive drag.
Cool.
Buddha.

Quote from: The Buddha on October 09, 2008, 01:32:15 PM
Yea triangular or oval can have a twist too. Like I said, not a lot, just a little, if its a serious triangle it will have massive drag.
Cool.
Buddha.

Oh...k.  Got it.  I see how that could work.  And that would hinder and standard circular barrel from being used.  I guess that could have a reduction of homemade guns.

It should also be better than a regular gun ... dunno how ... but should be.
Then you could make a gun by hand, and make the bullets by hand, only to break into a house and have a guy point this triangular triple laser twist, target finder equipped, night vision enabled heat seeking gun in the hands of 2 people complete with silencer ... in the total darkness you barely make out the man pointing it at your head, and woman pointing it at your you know ... and she softly says, I'll take this one please darlin ...
And ... a voice over says (clint eastwood's circa 1982 voice) , you have a gun you hammered together in the ghetto, they have 2 that was machined by the smartest people in the world, in a 3 billion dollar smith and wesson factory ... the question you have to ask yourself is ... do you feel lucky ... do you punk.

Think of what it will do to the crime rate, never mind the gun, just the ad. All you have to do is to make a gun that every gun hating liberal will want to own, because its only purpose is to work for you and only you. No need for gun cases, no danger of kids taking it to school, no reason a untrained person can accidentally hurt themselves or others with it. Every adult who wants one is going to be trained and gene coded and registered for its use. You have to take and pass target shooting as well as maintenance classes to be able to have one. But once you do, its your right to carry on private property.

Criminals will not want to enter your house if there is a high probability that there is a gun. The will not want to enter it when you are not in to steal your gun because they know its useless to them. That is the end.

Cool.
Buddha.

Why be allowed to carry it only on private property? Crimes are committed in public too. Think of the deterrence factor if the criminal has to be worried about being shot wherever he is committing a crime, not just in someone else's home.