Re: Guns? Ridiculous?

[Adron]

Guns will never be banned in the United States, so we will never have that problem.

Guns may be banned in the United States in the future.

And I disagree, its that simple.

But how can you disagree with a may? It's not a will or a will not. It states that both outcomes are possible given the facts available. What facts do you have to make you exclude one?

[Hazard]

Guns will never be banned in the United States, so we will never have that problem.

Guns may be banned in the United States in the future.

And I disagree, its that simple.

The precedent of over 200 years of legistlation is on my side.

But how can you disagree with a may? It's not a will or a will not. It states that both outcomes are possible given the facts available. What facts do you have to make you exclude one?

[Adron]

The precedent of over 200 years of legistlation is on my side.

But how can you disagree with a may? It's not a will or a will not. It states that both outcomes are possible given the facts available. What facts do you have to make you exclude one?

You're quoting wrong again, put your text outside the tags surrounding my text.

I can see how you'd take precedent as a good reason for thinking it won't change. But, unless there have either been serious tries to get it changed during that time and those tries have failed for some reason that cannot be expected to change in the future, I don't think using precedent to predict non-change is a good idea.

Things just don't change before they change. Yet things do change. Is the fact that this apple has been sitting on my desk for two weeks an indicator that it will sit there two more weeks? No - it's starting to spoil, and I'm going to throw it away soon.

If something hasn't happened in 200 years, that could be taken as an indication that it doesn't happen often. I don't think it can be used to say that it won't happen in 400 years though. You simply haven't observed it long enough to make a highly accurate statement about that.

Also, for this particular case, amendments have been added to the constitution before. So there is precedent that things do change.

[Grok]

I'd like to start out by saying, you are an ignorant fool.

Cut this crap out.  Personal attacks are not a welcome part of any discussion on this forum.  Blast the content all you want, but do it in an intelligent way with clear intent to prove your position, or to disprove his content.  Name-calling does not accomplish either goal.

[Hazard]

Is the fact that this apple has been sitting on my desk for two weeks an indicator that it will sit there two more weeks? No - it's starting to spoil, and I'm going to throw it away soon.

Is the fact that its starting to spoil and indicator that you are certainly going to throw it away?

If something hasn't happened in 200 years, that could be taken as an indication that it doesn't happen often. I don't think it can be used to say that it won't happen in 400 years though. You simply haven't observed it long enough to make a highly accurate statement about that.

So take gravity. Just because gravity has effected all objects so far in history, does that mean it will neccessarily effect all objects forever?

Also, for this particular case, amendments have been added to the constitution before. So there is precedent that things do change.

If memory serves, the Bill of Rights has remained intact for over 200 years.