Discussion in 'Classic Menswear' started by j, Mar 2, 2005.
Who you calling "grown"????
Maybe they don't like guns.
Maybe they don't like people who like guns.
Neither is prohibited by the Second Amendment, which says you can, not that you must.
I'm no expert on Florida law, but most places are permitted to refuse service to anyone on legitimate, non-discriminatory grounds. I see no credible argument that gun owners are a protected class (NO court has so ruled, as far as I'm aware) or that excluding gun carriers from premises under one's control somehow constitutes gun regulation. A rule to the contrary would effectively nullify the tort of trespass, and would substantially undermine the link between property ownership and property control. Given Florida's Homestead law, I strongly doubt that's the intent.
Let's get back to the awesome finds, shall we? If you'd like to further debate, we can take it to PM.
Nice Zegna. I've seen a couple of posts about Bally's recently. I've seen and inspected them before, and was never impressed. Seemed, idaknow, J&M quality to me. Should I be picking these up? Do folks around here like them for tradsies, etc?
+1 on the cat!
Odin?? Not GOD?!? I demand we now discuss how God and the lord and savior Jesus Christ relate to thrifting for at least 15 pages.
Only in my home state!!!
The thing here is, you are stretching things to make a point to, well, the breaking point. We need guns more than we need cars? Please. Any reasonable person can see that's ridiculous.
Okay one more response because I like you.
Most of my responses were satirical in response to outlandish claims. I realize there some obvious logical fallacies in my points--that was the point.
My core point is that the problem is the indian, not the arrow. Making guns illegal punishes only the legal gun owner. Criminals are criminals because they disregard laws, making another one won't affect them.
There are lots of things I don't like. Lots of things that, in my eyes, don't serve a purpose and are just foolish and harmful. However, I believe a person has the right to decide what's right for him- or herself.
Found a Glock 19 at SA today, barely used. Excellent patina, but markings tough to read.
Someone had to say it.
Edit: No need to go further into the gun debate for me. Plus i'd posted that before I read many of the responses, which covered a lot of what I was to say anyway.
Ugh. No. This is my lost post on this subject for real.
Let me spell this out.
You want to ban guns because people use them to harm other people.
I pointed out people can use cars to harm other people, so ban them, too.
Any logical person can see it is the fault of the user, not the device.
Actual utility of either device is irrelevant, because we don't make laws to outlaw something just because it has no utility.
No, making guns illegal would help everyone. Period. As others have said, it will never happen because there are just too many guns already out there (which hasn't swayed the drug legalization argument much, but that's another story--even though the bulk of illegal drugs haven't killed as many folks as legal ones). In an ideal world, a person should not have the right to decide what is right for them. A person should know, intuitively, what is right and what is wrong, and if they have difficulty making that distinction, then a mechanism should exist to prevent them from making decisions that are harmful to others. In short, your right to own a gun ends with my right to exist. The ability of anyone with a benjamin or two to own a gun threatens my right to exist, and that is wrong. I really don't think it gets much simpler than that, and that the criminal justice system has a means to punish those who interfere with my right to exist doesn't make me breathe once I've stopped.
Did someone thrift some guns or something? I thought I did good with polo ties today
Also, being a douchenozzle and not running for office when you have such strong political views that you post-a-rrhea on this thread should be outlawed, freedom of speech be damned! Call in the mods!
Related to thrifting, met up with troika today and he was a really top guy. Picked up a nice Oxxford jacket in store as well which made the trip doubly worthwhile.
And of course the 1000's of independent Baptist churches, Pentecostal churches, and the rest that all believe in a different interpretation of the good book. 1000 straw man arguments later ..... the war of words on the forum will turn deadly .....
Just out of curiosity: Why do you need to shoot anything? A target, a bottle, a tin can, a human being--what is it about guns that gets so many folks' rocks off that instruments of death are considered a sacred right?
Wait...what? I'm calling massive bullshit on this point.
Isn't that the entire point of the Congressional drug scheduling regime?:
"Schedule I substances are those that have the following findings:
The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse.
The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.
There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision."
Those are all straight utility arguments, and the bolded one indisputably so. And that's just one of the billions of things Congress regulates. Everything else in this dick-measuring back and forth aside, this one point is totally wrong. Pretty much the entire objective of lawmaking is balancing utilities.
Separate names with a comma.