OT Trump prematurely ejaculates

Don’t start bringing garden paths into it Andy - heaven knows where that will lead.

Incidentally, I want a bazooka!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ramAnag

I understand your points Ram, except that 1) That is neither pea-dophelia or child abuse. 2) I was talking about extreme and irresponsible high speed driving. 3) My reference was to blatant drinking and driving. 4) The scenario you describe doesn’t involve ‘rape’.

Acknowledge your point about ‘greyness’ however I suspect you know full well you are playing ‘devil’s advocate’ and taking us up a blind alley.
My point remains that we have certain taboos within society and that the public ownership of weapons more suited to use in wartime should be amongst them. It is in the UK...think it should be in the USA too.

---

I was just trying to point out that there are still grey areas in such obvious bad practises. With No1, you are factually correct, but I'm sure if I had a relationship with a 14/15 year old, I would be widely described as a *****.

NOS 2 and 3 show that at some point a mistake turns into recklessness, the question is at what point and this point will be different to different people.

With no4, I believe you're wrong unfortunately. The quirks of English law are that a man being drunk is no defence against the accusation of rape and a women intoxicated by alcohol cannot give consent to ***.

I totally agree that these weapons have no place outside the theatre of war, even if used innocently. I'm repulsed at the photos of right wing and black militia type groups marching along the streets in the US.

Although we have our differences in this country, hopefully we can continue to communicate those differences in not such an aggressive way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ramAnag

My position takes three forms. Firstly I find it frustrating that you and GP (Ram59 is at least consistent) can seldom actually make your minds up, albeit for different reasons, and take a stance. You did the same thing over Brexit, both voting against it, both sometimes arguing against it but eventually coming out in some sort of vague support for it and, in GP’s case, regularly heaping scorn on those who continue to think it represents imminent disaster...or in your case suggesting that those who oppose gun control are nothing more than ‘idealists’. Take a stance that you believe in.

Decisions can be influenced by time and changing circumstances. No one in their right mind would have legalised the widespread selling of cigarettes and alcohol had they known what they know now. Conversely, 15 years ago it would have been difficult to believe that smoking in public places would have ever been banned and going even further back...in the late sixties/early seventies(?) the notion of any objection to drinking and driving and the use of breathalysers would have been opposed on the basis of some infringement of civil liberty. Unpopular legislation can be passed if the argument is strong.

I completely accept the greater need for landowners/farmers to own certain guns in the US. Beyond that and despite their ‘Wild West’ history, there is, imo, no justification for ordinary people to own a gun which they keep in the home and on their person and there is absolutely no need and no justification for individuals to have the right to own rapid fire automatic or semi automatic weapons. Things need to change, people need to - for want of a much, much better expression - stick to their (metaphorical) guns, and the US needs to have a rational, logical national debate about the issue.

For the sake of argument, and completely hypothetically, if we in the UK were now to try and change laws relating to gun control, ownership and availability to being like those in the USA would you support such change? Y/N...no pontificating...take a stance!

---

I think what I've had is actually a 'nuanced view', on many issues. For Brexit, I voted Remain, I would vote Remain again, but as usual I chose to 'sit in the other fellah's chair' and try to understand what the motivations were for people that existed outside my small and well insulated bubble. Most of what I contributed in the Brexit thread was coloured by what I observed.and because what I observed stayed pretty stable, so did my contribution I thought. Respecting the decision of those who prevailed didn't stop me calling out, being exasperated with or occasionally being amused by some of the dafter things that came out of the Leave side, but it was the arrogance of the
Remain side, with their 'we're better than you, and we will prevail' attitude that created the biggest impression on me and you may have seen a hardening of my opinion that 'the will of the people' must be accepted - but thats a hardening of position not a failure to take a stance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andy_Faber

I think what I've had is actually a 'nuanced view', on many issues. For Brexit, I voted Remain, I would vote Remain again, but as usual I chose to 'sit in the other fellah's chair' and try to understand what the motivations were for people that existed outside my small and well insulated bubble. Most of what I contributed in the Brexit thread was coloured by what I observed.and because what I observed stayed pretty stable, so did my contribution I thought. Respecting the decision of those who prevailed didn't stop me calling out, being exasperated with or occasionally being amused by some of the dafter things that came out of the Leave side, but it was the arrogance of the
Remain side, with their 'we're better than you, and we will prevail' attitude that created the biggest impression on me and you may have seen a hardening of my opinion that 'the will of the people' must be accepted - but thats a hardening of position not a failure to take a stance.

---

I’m not sure I’d describe it as a ‘nuanced view’. You may like to ‘sit in the other fellah’s chair’ and perhaps Brexit is a good example of that, although tbh, I just found you indecisive.
The point I was trying to make earlier was that sometimes things are indefensible. No amount of ‘sitting in the other fellah’s chair’ will change that where the examples I provided are concerned and, imo, that too is true of attempting to justify Joe Public being allowed access to and ownership of automatic weapons. To return as near to the title as I dare...I sincerely hope that Biden starts to move things in the right direction, Trump most certainly didn’t.

So in summary it's Mr Stubbornly Always Right vs Mr Indecisive in Roger Hargreaves' terms. Can I be Mr Tickle?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geoff Parkstone

So in summary it's Mr Stubbornly Always Right vs Mr Indecisive in Roger Hargreaves' terms. Can I be Mr Tickle?

---

To be fair your posts are often good for a laugh!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ramAnag

I’m not sure I’d describe it as a ‘nuanced view’. You may like to ‘sit in the other fellah’s chair’ and perhaps Brexit is a good example of that, although tbh, I just found you indecisive.
The point I was trying to make earlier was that sometimes things are indefensible. No amount of ‘sitting in the other fellah’s chair’ will change that where the examples I provided are concerned and, imo, that too is true of attempting to justify Joe Public being allowed access to and ownership of automatic weapons. To return as near to the title as I dare...I sincerely hope that Biden starts to move things in the right direction, Trump most certainly didn’t.

---

I think all involved on here were pretty decisive (in a fairly/usually amicable way), that's why the thread is still chugging along nearly 5 years after it was started. There's been more solid citizens than silly sods and we all have our quirks and hobby horses but we've stayed steadfast in our views

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ram59

I was just trying to point out that there are still grey areas in such obvious bad practises. With No1, you are factually correct, but I'm sure if I had a relationship with a 14/15 year old, I would be widely described as a *****.

NOS 2 and 3 show that at some point a mistake turns into recklessness, the question is at what point and this point will be different to different people.

With no4, I believe you're wrong unfortunately. The quirks of English law are that a man being drunk is no defence against the accusation of rape and a women intoxicated by alcohol cannot give consent to ***.

I totally agree that these weapons have no place outside the theatre of war, even if used innocently. I'm repulsed at the photos of right wing and black militia type groups marching along the streets in the US.

Although we have our differences in this country, hopefully we can continue to communicate those differences in not such an aggressive way.

---

Its not a quirk of English law, its true that being drunk is no defence against committing a crime (not just rape), but the legal and court system does actually look at context and evidence, both before taking a decision to prosecute and during a trial. If the scenario is as you described, it is highly unlikely that a prosecution would result. One only has to look at the low level of prosecutions for rape to understand that the bar is set high (possibly too high) to get a conviction. Whilst I'm sure we have all been there and done that (get drunk I mean not rape) the law has to be that an adult be held responsible for their own actions and decisions, getting drunk and then committing any crime is not a grey area, its stupidity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andy_Faber

If I were a USA citizen I would be so entrenched in my opinion on this that whatever side of the fence I was ten years ago I would be now and I will be til I die - that's part of the problem. As an observer, a former gun owner (a 4/10) and first hand observer of two accidents with firearms, my recommendation would be: 1) Don't look to repeal the 2nd amendment, its political suicide - almost all my US friends are Democrats, almost all 'carry' or have a legal gun in the home, almost all would vote Republican if it meant retaining the right - so forget that as idealism. 2) Work towards a point where a test of reasonableness can be applied, ie what amount and type of firearms can one person reasonably need for legitimate means. 3) identify the areas of life where possession of firearms for 'legitimate' (in their eyes) such as personal defence/law enforcement/hunting (for game that is then eaten)/stock protection becomes possession for 'illegitimate' means such as person on person attack in all its forms. 3) for those areas of life, initiate a two pronged 'attack' - 3a) zero tolerance towards perps (whole life sentences for instance) and 3b) probably most importantly, address the root cause of each (type of) incident and make serious steps to reverse whatever behaviours/trends/cultures have given rise to it. Trouble is even as I write that, especially 3b, it just reads like complete fantasy. Whats your position?

---

Actually I don't believe that any American politician has ever tried to repeal the second amendment. Gun control in the US terms, was more about more restrictions on what type of weapons could be bought and owned and more recording of who bought them. After all when the 2nd amendment was drafted, the most sophisticated weapon was a six shooter. As ever times of changed and lets face it if the NRA were actually a responsible organisation they would support limited control over weapons that have no civilian use whatsoever.

The US has whole life sentences, even capital punishment in some states, doesn't seem to have the desired affect. You are a pessimist aren't you? 3b is entirely possible and where it has been implemented has shown positive results, regrettably its not seen as a political priority, possibly because those unaffected look down on those affected and blame the victims for their own circumstances.