• Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?

    Go here:

    Edit Account Details and Profile

NEWS Sen Tuberville and Appointment Delays

Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Mirage

Well-Known Member
pilot
Brett327 said:
Again, wish you would address the issue instead of creating another red herring.

Would you allow me to decide whether or not you get a medical procedure that would eliminate a 16% risk that you would lose sight in one eye? We already know the answer to that question. You would never, ever consent to such a proposition. This is what you are insisting that women do.

Reminds me of a meme I saw the other day….

“Remember, your religious beliefs constrain YOU. They do not constrain ME.”
Click to expand...
What red herring am I creating? That ending a life that would almost certainly grow to be an adult one day before it's out of the womb is wrong? You not agreeing with me does not make it an invalid point.. especially for the half of the country that pay taxes and agree with me.

As I said, I don't like that the best solution to this problem involves subjecting folks to risk by law, no matter how small. It's not ideal. Raising kids involves risk, too, but you can't just kill your kids to avoid that risk, because we all agree you don't have the right to end the kids lives. Even if your kids are literally making you suicidal and think it'd be necessary for your survival.
 
Brett327

Brett327

Well-Known Member
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
Mirage said:
What red herring am I creating? That ending a life that would almost certainly grow to be an adult one day before it's out of the womb is wrong? You not agreeing with me does not make it an invalid point.. especially for the half of the country that pay taxes and agree with me.

As I said, I don't like that the best solution to this problem involves subjecting folks to risk by law, no matter how small. It's not ideal. Raising kids involves risk, too, but you can't just kill your kids to avoid that risk, because we all agree you don't have the right to end the kids lives. Even if your kids are literally making you suicidal and think it'd be necessary for your survival.
Click to expand...
Since you’ve systematically avoided every hard question I’ve posed to you, I’m forced to simply accept your concession and move on. It’s too bad, because I feel like we’ve really offered up a degree of nuance on this topic, but when you repeatedly retreat to your “abortion bad” corner, it doesn’t leave much to work with.
 
M

Mirage

Well-Known Member
pilot
Brett327 said:
Since you’ve systematically avoided every hard question I’ve posed to you, I’m forced to simply accept your concession and move on. It’s too bad, because I feel like we’ve really offered up a degree of nuance on this topic, but when you repeatedly retreat to your “abortion bad” corner, it doesn’t leave much to work with.
Click to expand...
What question have I avoided? What are you talking about? Instead of simply saying "let's agree to disagree", you make some claim that anyone can read back a couple pages and see is patently false and act like I'm somehow conceding to your illogical arguments? GMAFB
 
Brett327

Brett327

Well-Known Member
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
Mirage said:
What question have I avoided? What are you talking about? Instead of simply saying "let's agree to disagree", you make some claim that anyone can read back a couple pages and see is patently false and act like I'm somehow conceding to your illogical arguments? GMAFB
Click to expand...
I’m not going to dance in circles with you, good buddy. Have an above average weekend. Hope yours looks as pleasant as mine does right now ?IMG_7627.jpeg
 
BigRed389

BigRed389

Registered User
None
insanebikerboy said:
This thread raises an interesting question (to me, at least).

California has a ‘gun roster’ that limits the types and brands of guns an ordinary person, including military, can buy.

Using me as an example, as a Florida resident I can drive to Florida and buy a Sig P365 from a dealer. I can’t buy that same gun from a dealer in California.

Can I now ask the DoD to fund my travel to Florida so I can fully exercise my 2A rights?

Obviously not the same as the abortion debate. The comments about servicemembers being restricted in rights based upon where they are stationed made me think about what other situations could apply.
Click to expand...

You could ask...but it probably wouldn't go anywhere, because there's no time sensitive need for you to have a particular model of gun.

But I don't think it's right that the subjective interpretations of laws between states should create undue hardship for a servicemember, and that includes firearms laws.

Does it make sense to me to literally have DOD fund travel to go to a 2A friendly state?
No...because I'd argue the real "hardship" isn't that you can't pull a trigger or buy the gun you want. To me, the problem if you have to leave behind items which are banned in your new PCS state, but not the one where you bought it. Like an AR or suppressor for a move to California.

My opinion, there should either be a federal law that grants an exemption for servicemembers to PCS with any legally owned firearms or, DOD pay for Non Temp Storage of any firearms you are prohibited from bringing in to the new PCS state.
 
Swanee

Swanee

Cereal Killer
pilot
None
Contributor
robav8r said:
No. I said a women who uses the military health care system as their birth control, routinely, should be limited/controlled/prohibited. Dude - how much time have you actually served ???
Click to expand...
That's not what you said.

and you're calling my service in to question now?

Come on man. You're better than this.
 
M

Mirage

Well-Known Member
pilot
Brett327 said:
I’m not going to dance in circles with you, good buddy. Have an above average weekend. Hope yours looks as pleasant as mine does right now ?View attachment 38518
Click to expand...
Here's what is actually happening. You lied and falsely accused me, got called out, and faced with either apologizing or proving you aren't a liar (which you cannot), you are instead taking the cowards way out and pretending like youre just over the conversation with perfect timing.

Have some honor. Either show me what question I skirted, or admit that you are throwing false accusations and apologize like a man. Prove you are better than that BS.
 
insanebikerboy

insanebikerboy

Internet killed the television star
pilot
None
Contributor
BigRed389 said:
You could ask...but it probably wouldn't go anywhere, because there's no time sensitive need for you to have a particular model of gun.

But I don't think it's right that the subjective interpretations of laws between states should create undue hardship for a servicemember, and that includes firearms laws.

Does it make sense to me to literally have DOD fund travel to go to a 2A friendly state?
No...because I'd argue the real "hardship" isn't that you can't pull a trigger or buy the gun you want. To me, the problem if you have to leave behind items which are banned in your new PCS state, but not the one where you bought it. Like an AR or suppressor for a move to California.

My opinion, there should either be a federal law that grants an exemption for servicemembers to PCS with any legally owned firearms or, DOD pay for Non Temp Storage of any firearms you are prohibited from bringing in to the new PCS state.
Click to expand...
Yeah, great points, particularly the one regarding things like ARs in California.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top