EPTOn July 22 2012 10:40 NeMeSiS3 wrote:
This type of argument is so fucking stupid it is beyond me. Ask yourself, why would they ever kill everyone ? What is the goal of that? People are there to work, killing all of your workers? non-logical. That's like saying "I have skin cancer in 4 of my limbs, I best cut all of them off and hope it works"
"facepalm"
Show nested quote +
On July 22 2012 10:31 Shantastic wrote:
Not the National Guard, but the force of the United States military? If the President and Joint Chiefs decided to stage a coup d'etat, something tells me they won't care about posse comitatus. And don't forget the nuclear, biological, and intelligent weapons arsenal capable of destroying every living soul in America dozens of times over. One of their men can kill a thousand of us from a computer. Guess what: if the White House Press Secretary tells me his boss has a drone camping my front door, I'm not leaving my house.
If you think having an M4 keeps you safe from that, I got nothin'.
On July 22 2012 10:18 cLutZ wrote:
I don't see what Logical connection you are ascribing to me. I don't think debates about Citizens United belong here. I called out said poster for doing it and said they only reason he brought it in is because he believes in both causes. That is all.
edit.
1. Your "old guns" context just changes the opportunity cost of freedom. Lots of things do that. I still feel that the cost is much less than the benefit.
2. Yes, the cops have better weapons than the average person. BUT, do you think the NoPD could impose martial law on the entirety of New Orleans? No, they can't, thats why they called in the National Guard during Katrina. Guess what, they can't call in the National Guard to every city in the country.
On July 22 2012 10:13 NeMeSiS3 wrote:
I am for the populace owning guns, but your argument and comparison is a bit ridiculous, you might want to fix that last line up, because it really puts all of us who think owning guns as a civilian is good in a bad light because we have you saying "only reason I can think of is the people who want to restrict freedom of speech and freedom to carry a gun are the same people" -.-. Dumb logic is dumb.
On July 22 2012 10:11 cLutZ wrote:
Why exactly is a discussion of campaign finance law (mainly drafted so that incumbants can stay in, and consolidae thier power) relevant to a gun control discussion?
Well the only reason I can think of is the people who want to restrict fredom of speech and freedom to carry a gun are the same people.
On July 22 2012 10:05 turdburgler wrote:
you live in the least politically savy western country i can think of, where you allow money to dictate politics to the highest degree and you equate speech to wealth, you think that in the modern world guns protect you? if you think england is at risk from tyranny and foreign invasion because we dont have guns, but youre country is ok because even though you have unlimited hidden donations to candidates, at least you own a pistol, i think you are being very silly.
On July 22 2012 09:55 cLutZ wrote:
I don't think people like you recognize the REAL reason for the 2nd Amendment. Its not so I can stop a home invasion (in a 1v1 fight where no guns existed I would best 9/10 people), that is an ancillary benefit to guns (that they essentially level the playing field between the physically strong and weak). No, the reason for the 2nd Amendement is to protect Me, My Family, My Community, My State, and My Nation from the people who would be imposing the law to restrict gun rights. An armed populace is supposed to deter tyrrany, deter usurpting freedoms, and deter foreign invasion.
edit
No, regulation of guns defeats the entire purpose of gun freedom.
On July 22 2012 09:28 Sjokola wrote:
Where is the harm in outlawing guns. We all know that having a gun significantly increases the chance that you die by gunfire. The only valid argument I've heard is that it's (debatably) a right to own a gun. But lot's of rights change through time. I believe US culture is too different form European for me to have an accurate image of how it could be. But where's the harm in trying. I couldn't possibly get worse when people aren't allowed to have guns so why not.
Edit: In case someone wants to dispute this...
ref: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17922-carrying-a-gun-increases-risk-of-getting-shot-and-killed.html
Where is the harm in outlawing guns. We all know that having a gun significantly increases the chance that you die by gunfire. The only valid argument I've heard is that it's (debatably) a right to own a gun. But lot's of rights change through time. I believe US culture is too different form European for me to have an accurate image of how it could be. But where's the harm in trying. I couldn't possibly get worse when people aren't allowed to have guns so why not.
Edit: In case someone wants to dispute this...
ref: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17922-carrying-a-gun-increases-risk-of-getting-shot-and-killed.html
I don't think people like you recognize the REAL reason for the 2nd Amendment. Its not so I can stop a home invasion (in a 1v1 fight where no guns existed I would best 9/10 people), that is an ancillary benefit to guns (that they essentially level the playing field between the physically strong and weak). No, the reason for the 2nd Amendement is to protect Me, My Family, My Community, My State, and My Nation from the people who would be imposing the law to restrict gun rights. An armed populace is supposed to deter tyrrany, deter usurpting freedoms, and deter foreign invasion.
edit
On July 22 2012 09:49 Sjokola wrote:
Good point. But guns not only hurt yourself. I was just making that point to show that it isn't safer for yourself to own a gun, let a alone other people.
The second point you make is actually very convincing to me. The is true for drugs policy. In the Netherlands the drugs policy which has always been very liberal is becoming more and more strict. And already you can see a rise in the illegal street sale. So maybe outlawing guns isn't the right option (in the US) but it should at least be heavily regulated don't you agree.
On July 22 2012 09:42 kdgns wrote:
Smoking increases risk of lung cancer, eating unhealthy foods is bad for you, drinking alcohol makes you make bad decisions, the list goes on. In terms of doing dangerous and stupid things that harm yourself, or increase the risk of harming yourself, it should not be up to the law to remove those things because you can not regulate stupidity or self destructiveness without being a police state. Prohibiting something that's bad for people has been tried in the past with alcohol, which had quite a disastrous effect. I think if you try to do that with guns you would end up with similar things, except instead of speakeasies you end up with unregistered guns, instead of moonshine, you get homemade guns without proper safeties, etc. Banning guns is pretty much off the table in terms of an option for me, the retaliation from the opposition would be too extreme.
On July 22 2012 09:28 Sjokola wrote:
Where is the harm in outlawing guns. We all know that having a gun significantly increases the chance that you die by gunfire. The only valid argument I've heard is that it's (debatably) a right to own a gun. But lot's of rights change through time. I believe US culture is too different form European for me to have an accurate image of how it could be. But where's the harm in trying. I couldn't possibly get worse when people aren't allowed to have guns so why not.
Edit: In case someone wants to dispute this...
ref: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17922-carrying-a-gun-increases-risk-of-getting-shot-and-killed.html
Where is the harm in outlawing guns. We all know that having a gun significantly increases the chance that you die by gunfire. The only valid argument I've heard is that it's (debatably) a right to own a gun. But lot's of rights change through time. I believe US culture is too different form European for me to have an accurate image of how it could be. But where's the harm in trying. I couldn't possibly get worse when people aren't allowed to have guns so why not.
Edit: In case someone wants to dispute this...
ref: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17922-carrying-a-gun-increases-risk-of-getting-shot-and-killed.html
Smoking increases risk of lung cancer, eating unhealthy foods is bad for you, drinking alcohol makes you make bad decisions, the list goes on. In terms of doing dangerous and stupid things that harm yourself, or increase the risk of harming yourself, it should not be up to the law to remove those things because you can not regulate stupidity or self destructiveness without being a police state. Prohibiting something that's bad for people has been tried in the past with alcohol, which had quite a disastrous effect. I think if you try to do that with guns you would end up with similar things, except instead of speakeasies you end up with unregistered guns, instead of moonshine, you get homemade guns without proper safeties, etc. Banning guns is pretty much off the table in terms of an option for me, the retaliation from the opposition would be too extreme.
Good point. But guns not only hurt yourself. I was just making that point to show that it isn't safer for yourself to own a gun, let a alone other people.
The second point you make is actually very convincing to me. The is true for drugs policy. In the Netherlands the drugs policy which has always been very liberal is becoming more and more strict. And already you can see a rise in the illegal street sale. So maybe outlawing guns isn't the right option (in the US) but it should at least be heavily regulated don't you agree.
No, regulation of guns defeats the entire purpose of gun freedom.
you live in the least politically savy western country i can think of, where you allow money to dictate politics to the highest degree and you equate speech to wealth, you think that in the modern world guns protect you? if you think england is at risk from tyranny and foreign invasion because we dont have guns, but youre country is ok because even though you have unlimited hidden donations to candidates, at least you own a pistol, i think you are being very silly.
Why exactly is a discussion of campaign finance law (mainly drafted so that incumbants can stay in, and consolidae thier power) relevant to a gun control discussion?
Well the only reason I can think of is the people who want to restrict fredom of speech and freedom to carry a gun are the same people.
I am for the populace owning guns, but your argument and comparison is a bit ridiculous, you might want to fix that last line up, because it really puts all of us who think owning guns as a civilian is good in a bad light because we have you saying "only reason I can think of is the people who want to restrict freedom of speech and freedom to carry a gun are the same people" -.-. Dumb logic is dumb.
I don't see what Logical connection you are ascribing to me. I don't think debates about Citizens United belong here. I called out said poster for doing it and said they only reason he brought it in is because he believes in both causes. That is all.
edit.
On July 22 2012 10:16 Shantastic wrote:
The arms specified in the context of the constitution take more time to load and fire one bullet at haphazard accuracy than it took one man to kill a dozen people yesterday. The Founding Fathers weren't thinking of allowing mentally/emotionally unstable people to buy hand-sized semi-automatics on a whim.
And I'm sick of people suggesting that the 2nd Amendment deters government tyranny. No gun you could ever save up the money to buy could protect you if our government decided to lock you up in a dark hole forever. They have the better weapons, better soldiers, and better training. We, the people (specifically the people who insist upon the right to carry), PAY THEM to have the better weapons, better soldiers, and better training. Until pro-gun voters start supporting the guy who says he'll scale back our defense budget, I refuse to believe they actually give a damn about defending America from an oppressively large government.
On July 22 2012 09:55 cLutZ wrote:
No, regulation of guns defeats the entire purpose of gun freedom.
No, regulation of guns defeats the entire purpose of gun freedom.
The arms specified in the context of the constitution take more time to load and fire one bullet at haphazard accuracy than it took one man to kill a dozen people yesterday. The Founding Fathers weren't thinking of allowing mentally/emotionally unstable people to buy hand-sized semi-automatics on a whim.
And I'm sick of people suggesting that the 2nd Amendment deters government tyranny. No gun you could ever save up the money to buy could protect you if our government decided to lock you up in a dark hole forever. They have the better weapons, better soldiers, and better training. We, the people (specifically the people who insist upon the right to carry), PAY THEM to have the better weapons, better soldiers, and better training. Until pro-gun voters start supporting the guy who says he'll scale back our defense budget, I refuse to believe they actually give a damn about defending America from an oppressively large government.
1. Your "old guns" context just changes the opportunity cost of freedom. Lots of things do that. I still feel that the cost is much less than the benefit.
2. Yes, the cops have better weapons than the average person. BUT, do you think the NoPD could impose martial law on the entirety of New Orleans? No, they can't, thats why they called in the National Guard during Katrina. Guess what, they can't call in the National Guard to every city in the country.
Not the National Guard, but the force of the United States military? If the President and Joint Chiefs decided to stage a coup d'etat, something tells me they won't care about posse comitatus. And don't forget the nuclear, biological, and intelligent weapons arsenal capable of destroying every living soul in America dozens of times over. One of their men can kill a thousand of us from a computer. Guess what: if the White House Press Secretary tells me his boss has a drone camping my front door, I'm not leaving my house.
If you think having an M4 keeps you safe from that, I got nothin'.
This type of argument is so fucking stupid it is beyond me. Ask yourself, why would they ever kill everyone ? What is the goal of that? People are there to work, killing all of your workers? non-logical. That's like saying "I have skin cancer in 4 of my limbs, I best cut all of them off and hope it works"
"facepalm"
The foundation of the gun freedom argument is that we need a means to defend ourselves from a potentially hostile government that would use its arsenal to deter us from resistance. My argument is stupid for granting that premise? That's cute. If you're going to flame my argument, best give decent thought to what it is you're saying.
