Question for our gun enthusiast friends.

rjhenn said:
Is the question "when life begins" or "when does a life become person"? Because, really, life only began once, a trillion years ago. Both the sperm and the egg are alive.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

But neither sperm nor egg can develop into a human being on their own. Yes, they are both living cells, but they cannot reproduce another human being until conception. Then, and only then, does the resulting cell have the necessary chromosome count and DNA to make a human being.

You bring up the classical question: Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

You say life began a trillion years ago. How do you know? Were you there? Do you truly understand the problems associated with the Theory of Abiogenesis?
 
rjhenn said:
Will make it harder for those who aren't a problem to get guns. It does nothing to make it harder for those who are the problem. Just like drug addicts don't have a problem getting hold of banned drugs.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Even though Stone hasn't admitted it; it does appear that he believes if it's harder for a law abiding citizen to possess a firearm, then the criminal element will just disappear.

:facepalm:
 
rjhenn said:
Which is fine if all that you're interested in is gun deaths. If you look at broader measures, such as total homicide rate, the conclusion falls apart. But control freaks will argue that gun deaths are all that really matter, as if other deaths don't matter.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Well put. This is exactly how many of them view homicides.

They also just count homicides. Sometimes the homicide is justified. There IS a right to self defense, even if it results in killing of another human being.

Some people just need shootin'.
 
Into the Night said:
A heart CAN pump without a brain. It does not require signals from the brain to pump. However, without a brain, there is no breathing. The heart muscle dies as a result of no oxygen. It pumps useless blood until it dies.

In the womb, of course, the umbilical cord takes place of oxygenating the blood. Therefore, no brain is necessary to pump that blood through the developing body. As long as the mother is breathing, the fetus gets oxygenated blood and no brain is required because breathing is not necessary.

Heart muscle cells will naturally start twitching at regular intervals. If one touches another heart muscle cell, they will synchronize and twitch together. As the heart develops, a few cells take the role of pacemaker and produce the master twitch on their own. This is all you need to make a heart beat. As long as the muscle cells receive oxygen and nourishment, they will continue to beat completely on their own without any brain.

A brain can adjust heartbeat rate, but it is not necessary to make a heart beat.
Click to expand...

It may be "rudimentary" brain activity; but without something telling the heart to beat, it wouldn't.

Otherwise why do people who have no noticeable brain activity, need to be on life support to keep the heart working?
 
Into the Night said:
Heller himself didn't say any such thing.

No such ruling was made. Gun regulation was not even part of the case.

Gun regulation is illegal, but that was not brought up as the reason for the lawsuit.
Click to expand...

Try to educate yourself so you don’t publicly humiliate yourself.

Scalia said:

The late justice also more generally offered the belief that “like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.” It is “not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” For instance, Scalia said concealment laws were permitted at the time of the Constitution’s ratification and should be permitted today.
 
Last edited:
domer76 said:
Try to educate yourself so you don’t publicly humiliate yourself.

Scalia said:

The late justice also more generally offered the belief that “like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.” It is “not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” For instance, Scalia said concealment laws were permitted at the time of the Constitution’s ratification and should be permitted today.
Click to expand...

So Into the Night was correct and no such ruling was made; because what you've posted was an OPINION.

Thanks for playing. :good4u:
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
OPINION, dumbfuck.!!
Click to expand...

That’s what they call it, dumbfuck. The majority opinion in Heller.

He wrote that the right to bear arms had limits. “Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”


Why is English such a challenge for you?
 
Last edited:
domer76 said:
That’s what they call it, dumbfuck. The majority opinion in Heller.

He wrote that the right to bear arms had limits. “Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

Why is English such a challenge for you?
Click to expand...

Since there is no link, your OPINION is worthless.

095ea45e2311cd42867eb1923bf858c3.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top