The Cellar  

Go Back   The Cellar > Main > Current Events
FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Current Events Help understand the world by talking about things happening in it

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-22-2018, 10:43 AM   #1
henry quirk
maskless: yesterday, today, tomorrow
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 2,162
C'mon, Pete...I see you there...gimme your best shot.
henry quirk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-22-2018, 11:33 AM   #2
Flint
Snowflake
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Dystopia
Posts: 13,136
Quote:
Originally Posted by henry quirk View Post
C'mon, Pete...I see you there...gimme your best shot.
Could you not say "shot"? Because I just got...

...

...

...

...

...

...

triggered.
__________________
******************
There's a level of facility that everyone needs to accomplish, and from there
it's a matter of deciding for yourself how important ultra-facility is to your
expression. ... I found, like Joseph Campbell said, if you just follow whatever
gives you a little joy or excitement or awe, then you're on the right track.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Terry Bozzio
Flint is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-22-2018, 06:14 PM   #3
Pete Zicato
Turns out my CRS is a symptom of TMB.
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Chicago suburbs
Posts: 2,916
Quote:
Originally Posted by henry quirk View Post
C'mon, Pete...I see you there...gimme your best shot.
I don't have the free time you seem to have, Henry. But I can tell a hawk from a handsaw. Time to go make dinner.
__________________


Talk nerdy to me.
Pete Zicato is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-24-2018, 12:01 PM   #4
Pete Zicato
Turns out my CRS is a symptom of TMB.
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Chicago suburbs
Posts: 2,916
Quote:
Originally Posted by henry quirk View Post
C'mon, Pete...I see you there...gimme your best shot.
Ok henry. I've got a few free minutes so let's see what you're willing to do.

I'm willing to have an open and honest discussion with you IF you are willing to abide by some rules.

Honest answers to questions, no bullshit.
No personal attacks.
Keep to the point.
This will be no internet troll fest. Just a real discussion between two people.
Willing to live with some potentially long delays - I still don't have a lot of free time.

Willing to give it a go?
__________________


Talk nerdy to me.
Pete Zicato is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-24-2018, 12:41 PM   #5
henry quirk
maskless: yesterday, today, tomorrow
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 2,162
"I'm willing to have an open and honest discussion with you IF you are willing to abide by some rules."

Sure, but I've got a few of my own which I'll list in a bit.

#

"Honest answers to questions, no bullshit."

I don't bullshit, I'm always honest, I say fuck a lot.

#

"No personal attacks."

Act like a human being and you got no worries; ignore what I write and act like tw, then you get what you get.

#

"Keep to the point."

I always keep to the point (as I'm cussnin').

#

"This will be no internet troll fest. Just a real discussion between two people."

Works for me.

#

"Willing to live with some potentially long delays - I still don't have a lot of free time."

Yeah, well I'm only 'here' when I have the time...I've gone weeks and months without doin' the cellar...I'm only here now cuz I got time to kill...if that changes, I'll be gone again...so: we'll just have to play this by ear and hope for the best.

#

"Willing to give it a go?"

Yep.

#

My rules...

1-When it cones to guns, my essential argument/question is: as I've committed no crimes with my shotgun, why should I (or any law abider) accept restrictions or hobbling in ownership or use of my gun because of the bad acts of others?

Throwin' stats at me will get you a 'that's all well and fine but 'I' didn't do anything wrong so why must 'I' get hobbled?' Not sayin' you can't use stats; am sayin' those stats aren't gonna address my concern/question and I'm probably not gonna spend a whole lotta time on those stats.

2-Being plain-spoken (though mebbe a tiny bit idiosyncratic) in presentation, nuthin' annoys me more than to have what I post ignored, miscatagorized, or misused...this is why tw gets up my nose...he's a fuckin' liar and fuckin' distorter and fuckin' ignorant. You, Pete, don't strike me as those things. So, don't misuse me and we should get along splendidly, even if we disagree.

Summing up...

I have my own particular, peculiar, interest in the issue(s) and I always operate out of that particular, peculiar position. For example: I won't defend or condemn the NRA cuz I don't give a fuck about the NRA, so I won't be prodded or cajoled into doin' either.

Don't pretend I say one thing when you damn well know I've said another. Don't ascribe motivations to me beyond what I ascribe to myself, beyond what's apparent in my posts. In short: don't be tw.

You undestand what I'm sayin' here, or am I just repeatedly muddyin' the waters?
henry quirk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-24-2018, 12:44 PM   #6
henry quirk
maskless: yesterday, today, tomorrow
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 2,162
and: I'm still willin' to tackle and dismantle the proposals mentioned by Flint...

...just sayin'
henry quirk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-24-2018, 12:45 PM   #7
Pete Zicato
Turns out my CRS is a symptom of TMB.
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Chicago suburbs
Posts: 2,916
Sounds good. Moving this to another thread.
__________________


Talk nerdy to me.
Pete Zicato is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-24-2018, 12:50 PM   #8
henry quirk
maskless: yesterday, today, tomorrow
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 2,162
okeedoke, will check back later

:thumb up:
henry quirk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-24-2018, 01:07 PM   #9
Flint
Snowflake
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Dystopia
Posts: 13,136
Background Checks.

Are they good? Are they bad? Could they be improved?

If there are issues with the current state of Background Checks, how could those concerns be addressed? If there are issues with any proposed improvements to the current state of Background Checks, how could those concerns be addressed?
__________________
******************
There's a level of facility that everyone needs to accomplish, and from there
it's a matter of deciding for yourself how important ultra-facility is to your
expression. ... I found, like Joseph Campbell said, if you just follow whatever
gives you a little joy or excitement or awe, then you're on the right track.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Terry Bozzio
Flint is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-24-2018, 02:30 PM   #10
henry quirk
maskless: yesterday, today, tomorrow
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 2,162
"Background Checks"

This may be one I can't dismantle cuz I've had my gun for a long time...got it well before mandated fed checks and here, in Louisiana, there is no mandated state check.

In short: I've got mine, didn't have to jump through hoops to get mine, so fuck it.

Not a answer, I know, so let me try...

On the face of it, I got no problem with background checks. A good chunk of what I do for a living involves background checks. I suppose the nature of the check is what concerns me.

I guess the over-riding thing for me, with background checks is: is there the presuming of innocence or guilt at the start? Checking with the intent to prove the gun buyer is guilty of sumthin' is different than checking with the assumption of innocence.

In one, you'll hunt till you find sumthin' to deny the purchase; in the other you'll simply check the facts as they exist, as they're recorded.

So, background checks are fine if done narrowly (no, you don't get to root through the gun buyer's undie drawer) and with the right ethic (the presuming of innocence).

Now, the effectiveness of checks is another thing entirely.

Obviously, the wider, deeper, more draconian, the check, the more effective. If you can go through the undies drawer you just might find sumthin' awful, sumthin' that justifies denying that gun purchase. Unfortunately you also piss liberally on the gun buyer's self-ownership and privacy.

Old notion: more safety, less liberty; more liberty, less safety.

I, of course, skew toward the more liberty the better (and I'll take care of my own safety, thank you very much). So, of course, I skew toward the narrow, minimal background check, knowing full well such checks will be less effective.

Does this answer satisfy?
henry quirk is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:50 AM.


Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.