|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On April 18 2013 23:31 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2013 23:20 Kimaker wrote:On April 18 2013 23:06 Leporello wrote:So Republicans defeated the most benign form of gun regulation imaginable, which the vast majority of the actual American people wanted. They did this with a minority vote, 46/100. That's not a victory, it's shameful. No gun owner is more "free" or secure in their gun ownership now because this bill was defeated. This is partisan politics. I'm reading people's reactions, and they don't even make sense. "It wouldn't completely work." Well nothing does. This is the reality of law enforcement -- you take what preventative measures you can and make the best with what you're given. And the gun-advocates have made it clear that they don't care about law enforcement or public safety nearly as much as they care about partisanship and meaningless political points. Background checks will eventually pass because it's common sense and a vast majority want to see it happen. I didn't even think people would argue against it -- in fact, until this legislation became newsworthy, most gun-advocates dismissed background checks as a non-issue that they'd be happy to go along with. But it's just the usual intellectual dishonesty with them. They like sounding reasonable, until it comes time for them to actually compromise. On April 18 2013 16:41 DeepElemBlues wrote:On April 18 2013 16:30 Wombat_NI wrote:On April 18 2013 16:27 DeepElemBlues wrote:On April 18 2013 15:16 BronzeKnee wrote:On April 18 2013 15:02 Defacer wrote:On April 18 2013 14:41 BronzeKnee wrote:http://www.nyc.gov/html/om/pdf/2009/pr442-09_report.pdfPresidents Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama have all called for the end of private sales without instant background checks at gun shows. "63 percent of private sellers approached by investigators failed the integrity test by selling to a purchaser who said he probably could not pass a background check; some private sellers failed this test multiple times at multiple shows"We don't need background checks at gun shows? On April 18 2013 14:39 Defacer wrote:[quote] What I find interesting about this survey is that it pretty much reinforces my opinion.  The barrier of entry, or standard of training for owning and operating should be higher. There should be stiffer penalties for misusing guns and gun trafficking. And I don't see either of these things as being the same as restricting the availability of guns to the public. How does a background check hurt the accessibility to guns? You only can't get a gun if you can't pass the check, and people who don't pass the check shouldn't be getting a gun... Furthermore, I'd like to add that a standard of training severely restricts the accessibility of guns. Background checks don't hurt accessibility to guns. Never mind my part about background checks. I misread one of the questions in the survey and wrongly made an assumption. I am curious though, how do you think that adding a standard of training doesn't restrict accessibility (you wrote availability, but I assume you meant accessibility) to guns? Training costs time and money. Poor people lack and time and money, so they shouldn't be able to own a gun because they can't afford some training class? That seems like a terrible idea to me. I also want to say that the survey had poorly worded and loaded questions. Missing from the survey was simple questions like "Do you think all gun sales at a gun show should be subject to a background check?" On April 18 2013 15:16 Wombat_NI wrote:
Still insane to me, no matter how much I try to rationalise it as cultural relativism. I wouldn't mind if this inalieable freedom to carry guns that the right in America hold so dear was extended to, I don't know drug use so that so much money, prison space etc wasn't being continually being pissed away, or a woman's right to an abortion. Fuck consistency though
To the non-idiot gunowners, there's an argument to be made in your favour, and some of you do a good job.
Saw Obama talking about this briefly, what was he referring to when he mentioned misinformation being spread about the bill? Good to see him speak out for once, but not sure if he was correct in saying that? Wish he had been more forthright when it came to Obamacare and 'death panels' instead of being Mr Bipartisan all the time mind. Obama hasn't been Mr. Bipartisan since being re-elected. It didn't work for him the first time and he isn't doing it. Thank God. Yeah, giving every liberal on the internet his fantasy and going all-out against the Republicans sure just got him a big triumph on legislation covering this very topic. It didn't, he lost. Acting like the Chicago bareknuckle politician he is got him smacked in the mouth and he's angry about it. Too bad for him. What course of action and tone do you advocate then? First call for greater spending on mental health, including funding for existing institutions and the reopening of old ones or the creation of new ones. I'm conservative, this is something I think the government should spare no expense on. Reagan's experiment of shutting down funding for both federal and state mental institutions has been a huge failure. Most of the people released into outpatient care or simply let out into the streets have had a horrible time since. People like Adam Lanza and Jared Loughner should have been behind strong, locked doors far before they killed anyone. The next thing would be to not send mixed messages. They say they don't want to take our guns, that's ridiculous, and then they want to pass laws or do pass laws that ban a big list of guns! How can they expect pro-gun people to swallow that and expect the Democrats to negotiate in good faith? And keep Obama out of negotiating period, his compulsion to lecture and be a dick about it has made it so that Republicans simply won't talk with him. They want to negotiate with Biden because Biden isn't a dick and he actually negotiates. Expand background checks fully to gun shows. Most gun sellers at shows are already licensed federal dealers who have to do background checks anyway, extend that to everyone in the show. Leave personal transactions alone. That's a step too far on privacy to me. Selling a gun to a criminal or selling it when you know it will be used in a crime or being a criminal in possession of a gun and selling it to anyone is already illegal. Shouldn't have it in the first place and selling it is just another charge on top. We don't need paperwork for family members or friends giving or selling guns to each other. These are things I think would have helped, and I think they would have been a good first step in establishing cooperation and trust among both sides. I also think they would be good reforms that would help reduce gun violence. But instead we got Nurse Ratchet Bloomberg and Lecturing You're Never Good Father Obama. Because all he really cares about is winning next year so he can do whatever he wants his last 2 years. He wants to use guns as a wedge issue against Republicans. It's incredibly bad political strategy. You can't beat the Republicans on guns. What kind of weed is Obama smoking? I'd say I want some but I don't, it's making him stoned stupid. On April 18 2013 16:37 Defacer wrote:On April 18 2013 16:27 DeepElemBlues wrote:On April 18 2013 15:16 BronzeKnee wrote:On April 18 2013 15:02 Defacer wrote:On April 18 2013 14:41 BronzeKnee wrote:http://www.nyc.gov/html/om/pdf/2009/pr442-09_report.pdfPresidents Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama have all called for the end of private sales without instant background checks at gun shows. "63 percent of private sellers approached by investigators failed the integrity test by selling to a purchaser who said he probably could not pass a background check; some private sellers failed this test multiple times at multiple shows"We don't need background checks at gun shows? [quote] How does a background check hurt the accessibility to guns? You only can't get a gun if you can't pass the check, and people who don't pass the check shouldn't be getting a gun... Furthermore, I'd like to add that a standard of training severely restricts the accessibility of guns. Background checks don't hurt accessibility to guns. Never mind my part about background checks. I misread one of the questions in the survey and wrongly made an assumption. I am curious though, how do you think that adding a standard of training doesn't restrict accessibility (you wrote availability, but I assume you meant accessibility) to guns? Training costs time and money. Poor people lack and time and money, so they shouldn't be able to own a gun because they can't afford some training class? That seems like a terrible idea to me. I also want to say that the survey had poorly worded and loaded questions. Missing from the survey was simple questions like "Do you think all gun sales at a gun show should be subject to a background check?" On April 18 2013 15:16 Wombat_NI wrote:
Still insane to me, no matter how much I try to rationalise it as cultural relativism. I wouldn't mind if this inalieable freedom to carry guns that the right in America hold so dear was extended to, I don't know drug use so that so much money, prison space etc wasn't being continually being pissed away, or a woman's right to an abortion. Fuck consistency though
To the non-idiot gunowners, there's an argument to be made in your favour, and some of you do a good job.
Saw Obama talking about this briefly, what was he referring to when he mentioned misinformation being spread about the bill? Good to see him speak out for once, but not sure if he was correct in saying that? Wish he had been more forthright when it came to Obamacare and 'death panels' instead of being Mr Bipartisan all the time mind. Obama hasn't been Mr. Bipartisan since being re-elected. It didn't work for him the first time and he isn't doing it. Thank God. Yeah, giving every liberal on the internet his fantasy and going all-out against the Republicans sure just got him a big triumph on legislation covering this very topic. It didn't, he lost. Acting like the Chicago bareknuckle politician he is got him smacked in the mouth and he's angry about it. Too bad for him. I have to say, I actually thought the Chicago politician-routine was going to work. He seemed to get the conversation about gun control further than anyone else in recent memory. Just out of curiosity, how do you feel about the current gun legislation? Are you fine with it or is there anything you'd like to see changed. I feel like it was would have been ineffectual and probably in some ways unconstitutional, particularly the magazine limit. I feel like there were die-hards on both sides that weren't going to budge period, but there were about 10 Senators, maybe a few more, really trying to get some compromise. And I feel like reaching a deal failed because of the aggressive and demeaning way people like Bloomberg and Obama behaved and talked about the issue this entire time. Many, many pages ago someone had this argument, and I was hoping it'd stay dead. Not surprising it isn't, because it's pure political BS. Let me explain some basic logistics -- you don't negotiate or compromise by demanding things stay status quo. I get you think it's great politics (because let's not kid ourselves) to blame anything you can on your political opposites, but in this case you're arguing something as wrong as 1+1=5. You fight for status quo -- you don't compromise for it. By negotiating or compromising, you're abandoning status quo. Obama and the Democrats asked the Republicans to compromise. They asked for the smallest changes to the status quo that they possibly could. And yet the Republicans refused. End of story. It doesn't take five long paragraphs of nonsense filled with baseless pontificating and media-based character judgments to explain that the Republicans refused to compromise. This was the most menial piece of gun regulation the Democrats could come up with, in order to appease the Republicans, and yet it wasn't enough. Republicans have offered no alternatives. They simply demand status quo. Are you suggesting that Republicans denied Americans better safety because Obama wasn't "nice" enough to them? There is nothing from the Republicans that suggests their willingness to compromise on this issue. In your rambling, you don't mention one thing the Republicans have done to further gun-safety and to strengthen law-enforcement in their fight against gun violence. Not one thing. What you are addressing is the difference between a whim and a conviction. I, along with many other Americans, view my right to bear arms as the equivalent to the right to vote. No limitation or infringements. Period. Dems had voter ID as their horse, Reps have background checks. Simply a matter of differing convictions. At this point we have two vastly different cultures living in the country which refuse to reconcile with one another. I'm for Balkanization. It's either that, or both sides admit they're waging an ideological war with the intent of exterminating (brainwashing) the other side out of existence. There have always been limitations on your right to vote. For example: women. A current example: felons. There are limitations, nuances to everything, which is why God gave us the ability of discretion. Your second amendment right to "arms" has several severe limitations already, which no one argues about, because everyone pretty much agrees that civilians don't need to own "arms" that are capable of mass destruction. Some will argue that people don't need to own any more "arms" than is necessary to protect their home, or go hunting, which makes sense to me.
I agree. Similarly there have been historical limitations on the right to bear arms.
As such, I strongly support a land requirement to vote at the Federal Level. Seems arbitrary? Because it is. Some people would agree with me, some would disagree (to varying extents). It's culture which unifies people to be able to act as a group with some sense of cohesion. We're not a country any more. We're really not. What's our unifying culture?
All I'm asking is that both sides recognize that (depending on the issue) there is a cultural imposition and (quite frankly) attack on the other "nation" living within the bounds of the same State (the United States). In this case, the Left/Progressives/Liberal/whatever, are the aggressors. For voter ID, it was the Right.
I recognize that when I make these arguments, I shouldn't HAVE to be making them any more than the people I'm arguing with should have to make them. We're so diametrically opposed, for either side to "win" is to attack the others very way of life. That's not a country. That's not a single people. Jesus, the only time we get along is when there's a major attack on the "house" from an outside source.
With all that in mind, I very much doubt that you'll ever make satisfactory headway on this issue. The truth is, we don't even belong to the same culture.
|
I think its funny that people in this thread are trying to say that pro-gun people are only defending semi-automatics, and that we're all fine with fully-automatic guns being restricted. I'm certainly not. I would absolutely have fully-automatic guns be legal. I'm arguing for semi-automatics to be legal right now because that's a more pressing issue, that's a battle I might be able to win. The fight for fully-automatic guns is over for now, no point in arguing for them until everyone agrees semi's should be legal.
If you want me to argue for fully-automatics as well, I totally can. Honestly, most of the arguments are the same.
|
On April 19 2013 00:10 Millitron wrote:
I think its funny that people in this thread are trying to say that pro-gun people are only defending semi-automatics, and that we're all fine with fully-automatic guns being restricted. I'm certainly not. I would absolutely have fully-automatic guns be legal. I'm arguing for semi-automatics to be legal right now because that's a more pressing issue, that's a battle I might be able to win. The fight for fully-automatic guns is over for now, no point in arguing for them until everyone agrees semi's should be legal.
If you want me to argue for fully-automatics as well, I totally can. Honestly, most of the arguments are the same.
No.
Let's get straight to the point and argue about nuclear weapons.
Since the Second Amendment is supposed to give us the ability to overthrow an oppressive government by arming citizens, why can we have nuclear weapons since they are a part of modern warfare?
And honestly, most of the arguments are the same, as you said (There are even some better arguments, no one has died from private nuclear weapons in America, so they are obviously 100% safe)!
And that is why the logic is flawed and wrong, whether it be applied to semi-auto, full-auto, or nuclear weapons.
On April 18 2013 23:42 Kimaker wrote:
As such, I strongly support a land requirement to vote at the Federal Level. Seems arbitrary? Because it is.
No, it actually just seems idiotic. When you're born, you don't own land. So when you the draft comes and scoops you up at 18 years old just as you graduate high school and ships you off to war, you have no voice. That is wrong, just as it was wrong when the voting age was higher than the draft age. And that was changed too. Sadly, that is only one of the many reason that idea is idiotic.
But based on your posts I'm guessing you a right winger, and want to skew the elections in the right's favor, which is exactly what a law like this would do. Just the same as the people who want the Republican legislature in Michigan and other Blue states to divide their electoral votes rather than the use the winner takes all system. This change would allow Romney to win, even though he got destroyed in the popular vote. Of course that don't want that same system to apply to Texas and the Red States, because then Obama would still win.
Your change doesn't lead us to a better form of Democracy or a Republic, it is beginning of an Oligarchy by definition.
"Oligarchy (from Greek ὀλιγαρχία (oligarkhía); from ὀλίγος (olígos), meaning "few", and ἄρχω (arkho), meaning "to rule or to command")[1][2][3] is a form of power structure in which power effectively rests with a small number of people. These people could be distinguished by royalty, wealth, family ties, education, corporate, or military control."
On April 18 2013 23:42 Kimaker wrote:
We're so diametrically opposed, for either side to "win" is to attack the others very way of life. That's not a country. That's not a single people.
With all that in mind, I very much doubt that you'll ever make satisfactory headway on this issue. The truth is, we don't even belong to the same culture.
I can't stand this argument. The Right is always asking that, "why can't we both just live our lives the way we want?" And using that an excuse to justify their "culture."
You know who else used that argument? Southern Slave owners.
That isn't an argument, it is an excuse for bigots. No law, despite any amount of support locally, can threaten freedom.
Some people just don't seem to understand that. They don't understand why everyone deserves freedom, and are especially against giving freedom to people who don't currently have it. They fought against rights for the poor, for women, for African Americans and fight now against the freedom for gays to get married.
You can use this a litmus test: When a way of life holds people hostage and denies them basic freedom, it has to change and deserves to be attacked.
Guns (and weapons in general), are a case where one persons freedom to own a weapon, can threaten the freedom and lives of others. For this reason it has be balanced, we can't allow people to own everything, but we can't deny people the right to own anything. Thus, I don't think this country should ban assault weapons, but I do believe that there should be universal background checks.
|
On April 19 2013 00:45 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2013 00:10 Millitron wrote:
I think its funny that people in this thread are trying to say that pro-gun people are only defending semi-automatics, and that we're all fine with fully-automatic guns being restricted. I'm certainly not. I would absolutely have fully-automatic guns be legal. I'm arguing for semi-automatics to be legal right now because that's a more pressing issue, that's a battle I might be able to win. The fight for fully-automatic guns is over for now, no point in arguing for them until everyone agrees semi's should be legal.
If you want me to argue for fully-automatics as well, I totally can. Honestly, most of the arguments are the same. No. Let's get straight to the point and argue about nuclear weapons. Since the Second Amendment is supposed to give us the ability to overthrow an oppressive government by arming citizens, why can we have nuclear weapons since they are a part of modern warfare? And honestly, most of the arguments are the same, as you said (There are even some better arguments, no one has died from private nuclear weapons in America, so they are obviously 100% safe)! And that is why the logic is flawed and wrong, whether it be applied to semi-auto, full-auto, or nuclear weapons.Show nested quote +On April 18 2013 23:42 Kimaker wrote:
As such, I strongly support a land requirement to vote at the Federal Level. Seems arbitrary? Because it is. No, it actually just seems idiotic. When you're born, you don't own land. So when you the draft comes and scoops you up at 18 years old just as you graduate high school and ships you off to war, you have no voice. That is wrong, just as it was wrong when the voting age was higher than the draft age. And that was changed too. Sadly, that is only one of the many reason that idea is idiotic. But based on your posts I'm guessing you a right winger, and want to skew the elections in the right's favor, which is exactly what a law like this would do. Just the same as the people who want the Republican legislature in Michigan and other Blue states to divide their electoral votes rather than the use the winner takes all system. This change would allow Romney to win, even though he got destroyed in the popular vote. Of course that don't want that same system to apply to Texas and the Red States, because then Obama would still win. Your change doesn't lead us to a better form of Democracy or a Republic, it is beginning of an Oligarchy by definition. "Oligarchy (from Greek ὀλιγαρχία (oligarkhía); from ὀλίγος (olígos), meaning "few", and ἄρχω (arkho), meaning "to rule or to command")[1][2][3] is a form of power structure in which power effectively rests with a small number of people. These people could be distinguished by royalty, wealth, family ties, education, corporate, or military control."Show nested quote +On April 18 2013 23:42 Kimaker wrote:
We're so diametrically opposed, for either side to "win" is to attack the others very way of life. That's not a country. That's not a single people. The Right is always asking that, "why can't we both just live our lives the way we want?" You know who else used that argument? Southern Slave owners. That isn't an argument, it is an excuse for bigots. No law, despite any amount of support locally, can threaten freedom. The Right doesn't seem to understand that. They don't understand why everyone deserves freedom. They fought against rights for the poor, for women, for African Americans and fight now against the freedom for gays to get married. You can use this a litmus test: When a way of life holds people hostage and denies them basic freedom, it has to change and deserves to be attacked.
Nukes are a ridiculous strawman, and you know it.
1) The government doesn't actually use nukes, and if they ever did it'd be self-defeating. Any nation that uses nukes will immediately turn the rest of the world against them. Nukes aren't a part of modern warfare. I'm only arguing for the same weapons the government uses. If I can't have a semi-automatic rifle, a machine gun, a tank, or whatever, why should the government? They're just as human, and just as prone to misuse them.
2) Nukes are so expensive and hard to get, whole countries struggle with it. If some individual has the money and contacts to get one, they must be responsible enough to have it. You can't be crazy AND have that kind of power. They're so hard to get anyways, you don't really need laws banning it.
And as for Kimaker's point, lets say you're a Northerner. What does it matter to you if the South has slaves? They want to secede and keep their slaves? How does that hurt you in any way?
It's just like how in the past 20 years, we've been trying to spread democracy in the Middle East. It doesn't work for them, and they don't want it (generally, I know, Arab Spring, etc), why should we force it down their throats?
|
On April 19 2013 00:45 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2013 00:10 Millitron wrote:
I think its funny that people in this thread are trying to say that pro-gun people are only defending semi-automatics, and that we're all fine with fully-automatic guns being restricted. I'm certainly not. I would absolutely have fully-automatic guns be legal. I'm arguing for semi-automatics to be legal right now because that's a more pressing issue, that's a battle I might be able to win. The fight for fully-automatic guns is over for now, no point in arguing for them until everyone agrees semi's should be legal.
If you want me to argue for fully-automatics as well, I totally can. Honestly, most of the arguments are the same. No. Let's get straight to the point and argue about nuclear weapons. Since the Second Amendment is supposed to give us the ability to overthrow an oppressive government by arming citizens, why can we have nuclear weapons since they are a part of modern warfare? And honestly, most of the arguments are the same, as you said (There are even some better arguments, no one has died from private nuclear weapons in America, so they are obviously 100% safe)! And that is why the logic is flawed and wrong, whether it be applied to semi-auto, full-auto, or nuclear weapons.
Well, for one, nuclear weapons aren't really a part of modern warfare, nor would they be useful in any way in an actual civil-war scenario, for either side. If there was some kind of massive, country-wide revolt against the government, they can't exactly just start nuking their own people. Public opinion would destroy them at that point, even if no one but rebels died in the nuclear blast. Plus the damage they would be wreaking upon their own environment, economy, and people would be so catastrophic and massive that the result would be worse than even a revolt could be.
For the rebels, nukes would be equally useless for largely the same reasons. Following that logic, we can talk about drones, tanks, and all the rest of that high-tech, mass-destruction stuff. All of that is useless in the kind of war that a revolt against the US government would result in. You can't use that stuff on your own civilian population without turning public opinion against yourself so much that you'd lose the war anyway. Furthermore, our military would see massive abandonment by it's own troops if any kind of force like that was used against civilian populations.
Guns are a pretty good deterrent to an overreach of the federal/state governments. A lack of guns isn't necessarily going to guarantee the formation of a despotic totalitarian government, but an abundance of guns, combined with the historical freedoms and education which our citizens posses, can keep said totalitarianism from even beginning to form.
Furthermore, the purpose of the Second Amendment is not only to give you the ability to fight back against an oppressive government. It is also a deterrent to foreign invasion, and more importantly a guarantee of the private citizen to be able to secure and protect his own property and family. Nuclear weapons, and other weapons of mass, indiscriminate destruction are not necessary for any of the main arguments why the Second Amendment exists. A grenade is not a useful tool for protecting property and people. It is not necessary to deter foreign invasion, nor is it necessary to engage in resistance to a hostile, oppressive government.
This is all ignoring the fact that your nuclear weapon/grenade/tank argument is actually the fallacy of the slippery slope.
|
On April 19 2013 01:21 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2013 00:45 BronzeKnee wrote:On April 19 2013 00:10 Millitron wrote:
I think its funny that people in this thread are trying to say that pro-gun people are only defending semi-automatics, and that we're all fine with fully-automatic guns being restricted. I'm certainly not. I would absolutely have fully-automatic guns be legal. I'm arguing for semi-automatics to be legal right now because that's a more pressing issue, that's a battle I might be able to win. The fight for fully-automatic guns is over for now, no point in arguing for them until everyone agrees semi's should be legal.
If you want me to argue for fully-automatics as well, I totally can. Honestly, most of the arguments are the same. No. Let's get straight to the point and argue about nuclear weapons. Since the Second Amendment is supposed to give us the ability to overthrow an oppressive government by arming citizens, why can we have nuclear weapons since they are a part of modern warfare? And honestly, most of the arguments are the same, as you said (There are even some better arguments, no one has died from private nuclear weapons in America, so they are obviously 100% safe)! And that is why the logic is flawed and wrong, whether it be applied to semi-auto, full-auto, or nuclear weapons.On April 18 2013 23:42 Kimaker wrote:
As such, I strongly support a land requirement to vote at the Federal Level. Seems arbitrary? Because it is. No, it actually just seems idiotic. When you're born, you don't own land. So when you the draft comes and scoops you up at 18 years old just as you graduate high school and ships you off to war, you have no voice. That is wrong, just as it was wrong when the voting age was higher than the draft age. And that was changed too. Sadly, that is only one of the many reason that idea is idiotic. But based on your posts I'm guessing you a right winger, and want to skew the elections in the right's favor, which is exactly what a law like this would do. Just the same as the people who want the Republican legislature in Michigan and other Blue states to divide their electoral votes rather than the use the winner takes all system. This change would allow Romney to win, even though he got destroyed in the popular vote. Of course that don't want that same system to apply to Texas and the Red States, because then Obama would still win. Your change doesn't lead us to a better form of Democracy or a Republic, it is beginning of an Oligarchy by definition. "Oligarchy (from Greek ὀλιγαρχία (oligarkhía); from ὀλίγος (olígos), meaning "few", and ἄρχω (arkho), meaning "to rule or to command")[1][2][3] is a form of power structure in which power effectively rests with a small number of people. These people could be distinguished by royalty, wealth, family ties, education, corporate, or military control."On April 18 2013 23:42 Kimaker wrote:
We're so diametrically opposed, for either side to "win" is to attack the others very way of life. That's not a country. That's not a single people. The Right is always asking that, "why can't we both just live our lives the way we want?" You know who else used that argument? Southern Slave owners. That isn't an argument, it is an excuse for bigots. No law, despite any amount of support locally, can threaten freedom. The Right doesn't seem to understand that. They don't understand why everyone deserves freedom. They fought against rights for the poor, for women, for African Americans and fight now against the freedom for gays to get married. You can use this a litmus test: When a way of life holds people hostage and denies them basic freedom, it has to change and deserves to be attacked. Nukes are a ridiculous strawman, and you know it. 1) The government doesn't actually use nukes, and if they ever did it'd be self-defeating. Any nation that uses nukes will immediately turn the rest of the world against them. Nukes aren't a part of modern warfare. I'm only arguing for the same weapons the government uses. If I can't have a semi-automatic rifle, a machine gun, a tank, or whatever, why should the government? They're just as human, and just as prone to misuse them. 2) Nukes are so expensive and hard to get, whole countries struggle with it. If some individual has the money and contacts to get one, they must be responsible enough to have it. You can't be crazy AND have that kind of power. They're so hard to get anyways, you don't really need laws banning it. And as for Kimaker's point, lets say you're a Northerner. What does it matter to you if the South has slaves? They want to secede and keep their slaves? How does that hurt you in any way? It's just like how in the past 20 years, we've been trying to spread democracy in the Middle East. It doesn't work for them, and they don't want it (generally, I know, Arab Spring, etc), why should we force it down their throats?
You say that nukes are a ridiculous straw man, and then say that if someone had enough money to buy them they should be able to. Also, "You can't be crazy AND have that kind of power" is incorrect and you know it. Buying a nuclear weapon makes you responsible? What? You're defending slavery? It's statements like these that make me confused when I hear libertarians talk. I understand that you has this vast infallible theory about how everyone should have maximum freedoms and anything that wouldn't necessarily hurt someone should be legal, but when has letting everyone do whatever they want worked? Sometimes I feel like libertarians border on anarchism and want to jut go back to the wild west and lose all the rules of modern society completely.
|
On April 19 2013 01:50 ZackAttack wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2013 01:21 Millitron wrote:On April 19 2013 00:45 BronzeKnee wrote:On April 19 2013 00:10 Millitron wrote:
I think its funny that people in this thread are trying to say that pro-gun people are only defending semi-automatics, and that we're all fine with fully-automatic guns being restricted. I'm certainly not. I would absolutely have fully-automatic guns be legal. I'm arguing for semi-automatics to be legal right now because that's a more pressing issue, that's a battle I might be able to win. The fight for fully-automatic guns is over for now, no point in arguing for them until everyone agrees semi's should be legal.
If you want me to argue for fully-automatics as well, I totally can. Honestly, most of the arguments are the same. No. Let's get straight to the point and argue about nuclear weapons. Since the Second Amendment is supposed to give us the ability to overthrow an oppressive government by arming citizens, why can we have nuclear weapons since they are a part of modern warfare? And honestly, most of the arguments are the same, as you said (There are even some better arguments, no one has died from private nuclear weapons in America, so they are obviously 100% safe)! And that is why the logic is flawed and wrong, whether it be applied to semi-auto, full-auto, or nuclear weapons.On April 18 2013 23:42 Kimaker wrote:
As such, I strongly support a land requirement to vote at the Federal Level. Seems arbitrary? Because it is. No, it actually just seems idiotic. When you're born, you don't own land. So when you the draft comes and scoops you up at 18 years old just as you graduate high school and ships you off to war, you have no voice. That is wrong, just as it was wrong when the voting age was higher than the draft age. And that was changed too. Sadly, that is only one of the many reason that idea is idiotic. But based on your posts I'm guessing you a right winger, and want to skew the elections in the right's favor, which is exactly what a law like this would do. Just the same as the people who want the Republican legislature in Michigan and other Blue states to divide their electoral votes rather than the use the winner takes all system. This change would allow Romney to win, even though he got destroyed in the popular vote. Of course that don't want that same system to apply to Texas and the Red States, because then Obama would still win. Your change doesn't lead us to a better form of Democracy or a Republic, it is beginning of an Oligarchy by definition. "Oligarchy (from Greek ὀλιγαρχία (oligarkhía); from ὀλίγος (olígos), meaning "few", and ἄρχω (arkho), meaning "to rule or to command")[1][2][3] is a form of power structure in which power effectively rests with a small number of people. These people could be distinguished by royalty, wealth, family ties, education, corporate, or military control."On April 18 2013 23:42 Kimaker wrote:
We're so diametrically opposed, for either side to "win" is to attack the others very way of life. That's not a country. That's not a single people. The Right is always asking that, "why can't we both just live our lives the way we want?" You know who else used that argument? Southern Slave owners. That isn't an argument, it is an excuse for bigots. No law, despite any amount of support locally, can threaten freedom. The Right doesn't seem to understand that. They don't understand why everyone deserves freedom. They fought against rights for the poor, for women, for African Americans and fight now against the freedom for gays to get married. You can use this a litmus test: When a way of life holds people hostage and denies them basic freedom, it has to change and deserves to be attacked. Nukes are a ridiculous strawman, and you know it. 1) The government doesn't actually use nukes, and if they ever did it'd be self-defeating. Any nation that uses nukes will immediately turn the rest of the world against them. Nukes aren't a part of modern warfare. I'm only arguing for the same weapons the government uses. If I can't have a semi-automatic rifle, a machine gun, a tank, or whatever, why should the government? They're just as human, and just as prone to misuse them. 2) Nukes are so expensive and hard to get, whole countries struggle with it. If some individual has the money and contacts to get one, they must be responsible enough to have it. You can't be crazy AND have that kind of power. They're so hard to get anyways, you don't really need laws banning it. And as for Kimaker's point, lets say you're a Northerner. What does it matter to you if the South has slaves? They want to secede and keep their slaves? How does that hurt you in any way? It's just like how in the past 20 years, we've been trying to spread democracy in the Middle East. It doesn't work for them, and they don't want it (generally, I know, Arab Spring, etc), why should we force it down their throats? You say that nukes are a ridiculous straw man, and then say that if someone had enough money to buy them they should be able to. Also, "You can't be crazy AND have that kind of power" is incorrect and you know it. Buying a nuclear weapon makes you responsible? What? You're defending slavery? It's statements like these that make me confused when I hear libertarians talk. I understand that you has this vast infallible theory about how everyone should have maximum freedoms and anything that wouldn't necessarily hurt someone should be legal, but when has letting everyone do whatever they want worked? Sometimes I feel like libertarians border on anarchism and want to jut go back to the wild west and lose all the rules of modern society completely.
I think what he's trying to say is, if you have the desire and ability to create a nuclear weapon, a law saying "no nukes allowed" isn't going to stop you. In fact, having a nuclear weapon probably makes you less likely to be attacked by the US.
Also, it's funny that you bring up the wild west, because although people think of it as a crazy time due to movies and fantasy, it actually had a better functioning society than, say, modern day Detroit.
|
On April 19 2013 00:45 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2013 00:10 Millitron wrote:
I think its funny that people in this thread are trying to say that pro-gun people are only defending semi-automatics, and that we're all fine with fully-automatic guns being restricted. I'm certainly not. I would absolutely have fully-automatic guns be legal. I'm arguing for semi-automatics to be legal right now because that's a more pressing issue, that's a battle I might be able to win. The fight for fully-automatic guns is over for now, no point in arguing for them until everyone agrees semi's should be legal.
If you want me to argue for fully-automatics as well, I totally can. Honestly, most of the arguments are the same. No. Let's get straight to the point and argue about nuclear weapons. Since the Second Amendment is supposed to give us the ability to overthrow an oppressive government by arming citizens, why can we have nuclear weapons since they are a part of modern warfare? And honestly, most of the arguments are the same, as you said (There are even some better arguments, no one has died from private nuclear weapons in America, so they are obviously 100% safe)! And that is why the logic is flawed and wrong, whether it be applied to semi-auto, full-auto, or nuclear weapons.Show nested quote +On April 18 2013 23:42 Kimaker wrote:
As such, I strongly support a land requirement to vote at the Federal Level. Seems arbitrary? Because it is. No, it actually just seems idiotic. When you're born, you don't own land. So when you the draft comes and scoops you up at 18 years old just as you graduate high school and ships you off to war, you have no voice. That is wrong, just as it was wrong when the voting age was higher than the draft age. And that was changed too. Sadly, that is only one of the many reason that idea is idiotic. But based on your posts I'm guessing you a right winger, and want to skew the elections in the right's favor, which is exactly what a law like this would do. Just the same as the people who want the Republican legislature in Michigan and other Blue states to divide their electoral votes rather than the use the winner takes all system. This change would allow Romney to win, even though he got destroyed in the popular vote. Of course that don't want that same system to apply to Texas and the Red States, because then Obama would still win. Your change doesn't lead us to a better form of Democracy or a Republic, it is beginning of an Oligarchy by definition. "Oligarchy (from Greek ὀλιγαρχία (oligarkhía); from ὀλίγος (olígos), meaning "few", and ἄρχω (arkho), meaning "to rule or to command")[1][2][3] is a form of power structure in which power effectively rests with a small number of people. These people could be distinguished by royalty, wealth, family ties, education, corporate, or military control."Show nested quote +On April 18 2013 23:42 Kimaker wrote:
We're so diametrically opposed, for either side to "win" is to attack the others very way of life. That's not a country. That's not a single people.
With all that in mind, I very much doubt that you'll ever make satisfactory headway on this issue. The truth is, we don't even belong to the same culture. I can't stand this argument. The Right is always asking that, "why can't we both just live our lives the way we want?" And using that an excuse to justify their "culture." You know who else used that argument? Southern Slave owners. That isn't an argument, it is an excuse for bigots. No law, despite any amount of support locally, can threaten freedom. Some people just don't seem to understand that. They don't understand why everyone deserves freedom, and are especially against giving freedom to people who don't currently have it. They fought against rights for the poor, for women, for African Americans and fight now against the freedom for gays to get married. You can use this a litmus test: When a way of life holds people hostage and denies them basic freedom, it has to change and deserves to be attacked. Guns (and weapons in general), are a case where one persons freedom to own a weapon, can threaten the freedom and lives of others. For this reason it has be balanced, we can't allow people to own everything, but we can't deny people the right to own anything. Thus, I don't think this country should ban assault weapons, but I do believe that there should be universal background checks.
I can answer all of this with: I am ANTI-DEMOCRACY.
Also, your second point against me regarding secession makes my case more than refutes it. Well done. You have mastered ad hominem.
|
On April 19 2013 01:21 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2013 00:45 BronzeKnee wrote:On April 19 2013 00:10 Millitron wrote:
I think its funny that people in this thread are trying to say that pro-gun people are only defending semi-automatics, and that we're all fine with fully-automatic guns being restricted. I'm certainly not. I would absolutely have fully-automatic guns be legal. I'm arguing for semi-automatics to be legal right now because that's a more pressing issue, that's a battle I might be able to win. The fight for fully-automatic guns is over for now, no point in arguing for them until everyone agrees semi's should be legal.
If you want me to argue for fully-automatics as well, I totally can. Honestly, most of the arguments are the same. No. Let's get straight to the point and argue about nuclear weapons. Since the Second Amendment is supposed to give us the ability to overthrow an oppressive government by arming citizens, why can we have nuclear weapons since they are a part of modern warfare? And honestly, most of the arguments are the same, as you said (There are even some better arguments, no one has died from private nuclear weapons in America, so they are obviously 100% safe)! And that is why the logic is flawed and wrong, whether it be applied to semi-auto, full-auto, or nuclear weapons.On April 18 2013 23:42 Kimaker wrote:
As such, I strongly support a land requirement to vote at the Federal Level. Seems arbitrary? Because it is. No, it actually just seems idiotic. When you're born, you don't own land. So when you the draft comes and scoops you up at 18 years old just as you graduate high school and ships you off to war, you have no voice. That is wrong, just as it was wrong when the voting age was higher than the draft age. And that was changed too. Sadly, that is only one of the many reason that idea is idiotic. But based on your posts I'm guessing you a right winger, and want to skew the elections in the right's favor, which is exactly what a law like this would do. Just the same as the people who want the Republican legislature in Michigan and other Blue states to divide their electoral votes rather than the use the winner takes all system. This change would allow Romney to win, even though he got destroyed in the popular vote. Of course that don't want that same system to apply to Texas and the Red States, because then Obama would still win. Your change doesn't lead us to a better form of Democracy or a Republic, it is beginning of an Oligarchy by definition. "Oligarchy (from Greek ὀλιγαρχία (oligarkhía); from ὀλίγος (olígos), meaning "few", and ἄρχω (arkho), meaning "to rule or to command")[1][2][3] is a form of power structure in which power effectively rests with a small number of people. These people could be distinguished by royalty, wealth, family ties, education, corporate, or military control."On April 18 2013 23:42 Kimaker wrote:
We're so diametrically opposed, for either side to "win" is to attack the others very way of life. That's not a country. That's not a single people. The Right is always asking that, "why can't we both just live our lives the way we want?" You know who else used that argument? Southern Slave owners. That isn't an argument, it is an excuse for bigots. No law, despite any amount of support locally, can threaten freedom. The Right doesn't seem to understand that. They don't understand why everyone deserves freedom. They fought against rights for the poor, for women, for African Americans and fight now against the freedom for gays to get married. You can use this a litmus test: When a way of life holds people hostage and denies them basic freedom, it has to change and deserves to be attacked. Nukes are a ridiculous strawman, and you know it. 1) The government doesn't actually use nukes, and if they ever did it'd be self-defeating. Any nation that uses nukes will immediately turn the rest of the world against them. Nukes aren't a part of modern warfare. I'm only arguing for the same weapons the government uses. If I can't have a semi-automatic rifle, a machine gun, a tank, or whatever, why should the government? They're just as human, and just as prone to misuse them. 2) Nukes are so expensive and hard to get, whole countries struggle with it. If some individual has the money and contacts to get one, they must be responsible enough to have it. You can't be crazy AND have that kind of power. They're so hard to get anyways, you don't really need laws banning it. And as for Kimaker's point, lets say you're a Northerner. What does it matter to you if the South has slaves? They want to secede and keep their slaves? How does that hurt you in any way? It's just like how in the past 20 years, we've been trying to spread democracy in the Middle East. It doesn't work for them, and they don't want it (generally, I know, Arab Spring, etc), why should we force it down their throats?
Having wealth and power correlating with not being crazy is the biggest nonsense I heard in a long time. Government is not an individual (at least as far as western democracies go), but complicated structure consisting of many individuals. Particular person can easily be crazy in government or in private. It is much harder for well balanced collection of individuals to be batshit crazy. The reason is that there is more sane people than there are crazy ones. Organizations can be set up to keep crazies in check. You cannot do that with individuals. So your argument that government can be as crazy as individuals ignores reality.
Also are you really asking what me as a person have against slavery being practiced half a continent away. Are you a psychopath ? Because otherwise that question makes no sense.
|
On April 19 2013 01:58 Kimaker wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2013 00:45 BronzeKnee wrote:On April 19 2013 00:10 Millitron wrote:
I think its funny that people in this thread are trying to say that pro-gun people are only defending semi-automatics, and that we're all fine with fully-automatic guns being restricted. I'm certainly not. I would absolutely have fully-automatic guns be legal. I'm arguing for semi-automatics to be legal right now because that's a more pressing issue, that's a battle I might be able to win. The fight for fully-automatic guns is over for now, no point in arguing for them until everyone agrees semi's should be legal.
If you want me to argue for fully-automatics as well, I totally can. Honestly, most of the arguments are the same. No. Let's get straight to the point and argue about nuclear weapons. Since the Second Amendment is supposed to give us the ability to overthrow an oppressive government by arming citizens, why can we have nuclear weapons since they are a part of modern warfare? And honestly, most of the arguments are the same, as you said (There are even some better arguments, no one has died from private nuclear weapons in America, so they are obviously 100% safe)! And that is why the logic is flawed and wrong, whether it be applied to semi-auto, full-auto, or nuclear weapons.On April 18 2013 23:42 Kimaker wrote:
As such, I strongly support a land requirement to vote at the Federal Level. Seems arbitrary? Because it is. No, it actually just seems idiotic. When you're born, you don't own land. So when you the draft comes and scoops you up at 18 years old just as you graduate high school and ships you off to war, you have no voice. That is wrong, just as it was wrong when the voting age was higher than the draft age. And that was changed too. Sadly, that is only one of the many reason that idea is idiotic. But based on your posts I'm guessing you a right winger, and want to skew the elections in the right's favor, which is exactly what a law like this would do. Just the same as the people who want the Republican legislature in Michigan and other Blue states to divide their electoral votes rather than the use the winner takes all system. This change would allow Romney to win, even though he got destroyed in the popular vote. Of course that don't want that same system to apply to Texas and the Red States, because then Obama would still win. Your change doesn't lead us to a better form of Democracy or a Republic, it is beginning of an Oligarchy by definition. "Oligarchy (from Greek ὀλιγαρχία (oligarkhía); from ὀλίγος (olígos), meaning "few", and ἄρχω (arkho), meaning "to rule or to command")[1][2][3] is a form of power structure in which power effectively rests with a small number of people. These people could be distinguished by royalty, wealth, family ties, education, corporate, or military control."On April 18 2013 23:42 Kimaker wrote:
We're so diametrically opposed, for either side to "win" is to attack the others very way of life. That's not a country. That's not a single people.
With all that in mind, I very much doubt that you'll ever make satisfactory headway on this issue. The truth is, we don't even belong to the same culture. I can't stand this argument. The Right is always asking that, "why can't we both just live our lives the way we want?" And using that an excuse to justify their "culture." You know who else used that argument? Southern Slave owners. That isn't an argument, it is an excuse for bigots. No law, despite any amount of support locally, can threaten freedom. Some people just don't seem to understand that. They don't understand why everyone deserves freedom, and are especially against giving freedom to people who don't currently have it. They fought against rights for the poor, for women, for African Americans and fight now against the freedom for gays to get married. You can use this a litmus test: When a way of life holds people hostage and denies them basic freedom, it has to change and deserves to be attacked. Guns (and weapons in general), are a case where one persons freedom to own a weapon, can threaten the freedom and lives of others. For this reason it has be balanced, we can't allow people to own everything, but we can't deny people the right to own anything. Thus, I don't think this country should ban assault weapons, but I do believe that there should be universal background checks. I can answer all of this with: I am ANTI-DEMOCRACY. Also, your second point against me regarding secession makes my case more than refutes it. Well done. You have mastered ad hominem.
Did you have to quote the entire, massive post to make a two-line response? Couldn't you at least spoiler it or something?
|
On April 19 2013 01:50 ZackAttack wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2013 01:21 Millitron wrote:On April 19 2013 00:45 BronzeKnee wrote:On April 19 2013 00:10 Millitron wrote:
I think its funny that people in this thread are trying to say that pro-gun people are only defending semi-automatics, and that we're all fine with fully-automatic guns being restricted. I'm certainly not. I would absolutely have fully-automatic guns be legal. I'm arguing for semi-automatics to be legal right now because that's a more pressing issue, that's a battle I might be able to win. The fight for fully-automatic guns is over for now, no point in arguing for them until everyone agrees semi's should be legal.
If you want me to argue for fully-automatics as well, I totally can. Honestly, most of the arguments are the same. No. Let's get straight to the point and argue about nuclear weapons. Since the Second Amendment is supposed to give us the ability to overthrow an oppressive government by arming citizens, why can we have nuclear weapons since they are a part of modern warfare? And honestly, most of the arguments are the same, as you said (There are even some better arguments, no one has died from private nuclear weapons in America, so they are obviously 100% safe)! And that is why the logic is flawed and wrong, whether it be applied to semi-auto, full-auto, or nuclear weapons.On April 18 2013 23:42 Kimaker wrote:
As such, I strongly support a land requirement to vote at the Federal Level. Seems arbitrary? Because it is. No, it actually just seems idiotic. When you're born, you don't own land. So when you the draft comes and scoops you up at 18 years old just as you graduate high school and ships you off to war, you have no voice. That is wrong, just as it was wrong when the voting age was higher than the draft age. And that was changed too. Sadly, that is only one of the many reason that idea is idiotic. But based on your posts I'm guessing you a right winger, and want to skew the elections in the right's favor, which is exactly what a law like this would do. Just the same as the people who want the Republican legislature in Michigan and other Blue states to divide their electoral votes rather than the use the winner takes all system. This change would allow Romney to win, even though he got destroyed in the popular vote. Of course that don't want that same system to apply to Texas and the Red States, because then Obama would still win. Your change doesn't lead us to a better form of Democracy or a Republic, it is beginning of an Oligarchy by definition. "Oligarchy (from Greek ὀλιγαρχία (oligarkhía); from ὀλίγος (olígos), meaning "few", and ἄρχω (arkho), meaning "to rule or to command")[1][2][3] is a form of power structure in which power effectively rests with a small number of people. These people could be distinguished by royalty, wealth, family ties, education, corporate, or military control."On April 18 2013 23:42 Kimaker wrote:
We're so diametrically opposed, for either side to "win" is to attack the others very way of life. That's not a country. That's not a single people. The Right is always asking that, "why can't we both just live our lives the way we want?" You know who else used that argument? Southern Slave owners. That isn't an argument, it is an excuse for bigots. No law, despite any amount of support locally, can threaten freedom. The Right doesn't seem to understand that. They don't understand why everyone deserves freedom. They fought against rights for the poor, for women, for African Americans and fight now against the freedom for gays to get married. You can use this a litmus test: When a way of life holds people hostage and denies them basic freedom, it has to change and deserves to be attacked. Nukes are a ridiculous strawman, and you know it. 1) The government doesn't actually use nukes, and if they ever did it'd be self-defeating. Any nation that uses nukes will immediately turn the rest of the world against them. Nukes aren't a part of modern warfare. I'm only arguing for the same weapons the government uses. If I can't have a semi-automatic rifle, a machine gun, a tank, or whatever, why should the government? They're just as human, and just as prone to misuse them. 2) Nukes are so expensive and hard to get, whole countries struggle with it. If some individual has the money and contacts to get one, they must be responsible enough to have it. You can't be crazy AND have that kind of power. They're so hard to get anyways, you don't really need laws banning it. And as for Kimaker's point, lets say you're a Northerner. What does it matter to you if the South has slaves? They want to secede and keep their slaves? How does that hurt you in any way? It's just like how in the past 20 years, we've been trying to spread democracy in the Middle East. It doesn't work for them, and they don't want it (generally, I know, Arab Spring, etc), why should we force it down their throats? You say that nukes are a ridiculous straw man, and then say that if someone had enough money to buy them they should be able to. Also, "You can't be crazy AND have that kind of power" is incorrect and you know it. Buying a nuclear weapon makes you responsible? What? You're defending slavery? It's statements like these that make me confused when I hear libertarians talk. I understand that you has this vast infallible theory about how everyone should have maximum freedoms and anything that wouldn't necessarily hurt someone should be legal, but when has letting everyone do whatever they want worked? Sometimes I feel like libertarians border on anarchism and want to jut go back to the wild west and lose all the rules of modern society completely.
How are crazy people going to get the money and contacts to get a nuke? Remember, crazy people aren't exactly great at maintaining relationships or managing finances. Only a sane, responsible person would be able to manage their social networks and funds well enough to actually get a nuke. And besides, as I've said before, its a totally different issue anyways. The government doesn't use nukes, so it doesn't really matter if civilians can have them too.
I'm not defending slavery, I'm defending some other country's right to decide for themselves. The South wasn't trying to force the North to have slavery, they just wanted out. If you don't want slavery, good for you, that can be the law in your country. Isn't self-determination something you on the left want? You're always going on and on about giving people a voice, and letting them decide for themselves.
|
On April 19 2013 01:57 SpeaKEaSY wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2013 01:50 ZackAttack wrote:On April 19 2013 01:21 Millitron wrote:On April 19 2013 00:45 BronzeKnee wrote:On April 19 2013 00:10 Millitron wrote:
I think its funny that people in this thread are trying to say that pro-gun people are only defending semi-automatics, and that we're all fine with fully-automatic guns being restricted. I'm certainly not. I would absolutely have fully-automatic guns be legal. I'm arguing for semi-automatics to be legal right now because that's a more pressing issue, that's a battle I might be able to win. The fight for fully-automatic guns is over for now, no point in arguing for them until everyone agrees semi's should be legal.
If you want me to argue for fully-automatics as well, I totally can. Honestly, most of the arguments are the same. No. Let's get straight to the point and argue about nuclear weapons. Since the Second Amendment is supposed to give us the ability to overthrow an oppressive government by arming citizens, why can we have nuclear weapons since they are a part of modern warfare? And honestly, most of the arguments are the same, as you said (There are even some better arguments, no one has died from private nuclear weapons in America, so they are obviously 100% safe)! And that is why the logic is flawed and wrong, whether it be applied to semi-auto, full-auto, or nuclear weapons.On April 18 2013 23:42 Kimaker wrote:
As such, I strongly support a land requirement to vote at the Federal Level. Seems arbitrary? Because it is. No, it actually just seems idiotic. When you're born, you don't own land. So when you the draft comes and scoops you up at 18 years old just as you graduate high school and ships you off to war, you have no voice. That is wrong, just as it was wrong when the voting age was higher than the draft age. And that was changed too. Sadly, that is only one of the many reason that idea is idiotic. But based on your posts I'm guessing you a right winger, and want to skew the elections in the right's favor, which is exactly what a law like this would do. Just the same as the people who want the Republican legislature in Michigan and other Blue states to divide their electoral votes rather than the use the winner takes all system. This change would allow Romney to win, even though he got destroyed in the popular vote. Of course that don't want that same system to apply to Texas and the Red States, because then Obama would still win. Your change doesn't lead us to a better form of Democracy or a Republic, it is beginning of an Oligarchy by definition. "Oligarchy (from Greek ὀλιγαρχία (oligarkhía); from ὀλίγος (olígos), meaning "few", and ἄρχω (arkho), meaning "to rule or to command")[1][2][3] is a form of power structure in which power effectively rests with a small number of people. These people could be distinguished by royalty, wealth, family ties, education, corporate, or military control."On April 18 2013 23:42 Kimaker wrote:
We're so diametrically opposed, for either side to "win" is to attack the others very way of life. That's not a country. That's not a single people. The Right is always asking that, "why can't we both just live our lives the way we want?" You know who else used that argument? Southern Slave owners. That isn't an argument, it is an excuse for bigots. No law, despite any amount of support locally, can threaten freedom. The Right doesn't seem to understand that. They don't understand why everyone deserves freedom. They fought against rights for the poor, for women, for African Americans and fight now against the freedom for gays to get married. You can use this a litmus test: When a way of life holds people hostage and denies them basic freedom, it has to change and deserves to be attacked. Nukes are a ridiculous strawman, and you know it. 1) The government doesn't actually use nukes, and if they ever did it'd be self-defeating. Any nation that uses nukes will immediately turn the rest of the world against them. Nukes aren't a part of modern warfare. I'm only arguing for the same weapons the government uses. If I can't have a semi-automatic rifle, a machine gun, a tank, or whatever, why should the government? They're just as human, and just as prone to misuse them. 2) Nukes are so expensive and hard to get, whole countries struggle with it. If some individual has the money and contacts to get one, they must be responsible enough to have it. You can't be crazy AND have that kind of power. They're so hard to get anyways, you don't really need laws banning it. And as for Kimaker's point, lets say you're a Northerner. What does it matter to you if the South has slaves? They want to secede and keep their slaves? How does that hurt you in any way? It's just like how in the past 20 years, we've been trying to spread democracy in the Middle East. It doesn't work for them, and they don't want it (generally, I know, Arab Spring, etc), why should we force it down their throats? You say that nukes are a ridiculous straw man, and then say that if someone had enough money to buy them they should be able to. Also, "You can't be crazy AND have that kind of power" is incorrect and you know it. Buying a nuclear weapon makes you responsible? What? You're defending slavery? It's statements like these that make me confused when I hear libertarians talk. I understand that you has this vast infallible theory about how everyone should have maximum freedoms and anything that wouldn't necessarily hurt someone should be legal, but when has letting everyone do whatever they want worked? Sometimes I feel like libertarians border on anarchism and want to jut go back to the wild west and lose all the rules of modern society completely. I think what he's trying to say is, if you have the desire and ability to create a nuclear weapon, a law saying "no nukes allowed" isn't going to stop you. In fact, having a nuclear weapon probably makes you less likely to be attacked by the US. Also, it's funny that you bring up the wild west, because although people think of it as a crazy time due to movies and fantasy, it actually had a better functioning society than, say, modern day Detroit.
If you have the desire and ability to create a nuclear weapon does not mean the law would be irrelevant. It would easily prevent you from constructing said weapon on the territory of the state that enacted that law and actually was serious about enforcing it. It is not that hard to make sure people are not building nuclear weapons as it is not that hard to track all the necessary components. It is being done quite successfully with normal explosives, how would you build a nuclear weapon without government knowing it ? The only way would be to have nearly the same power as government has over its territory, but in that case we are talking about civil war or something like that.
|
On April 19 2013 02:04 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2013 01:50 ZackAttack wrote:On April 19 2013 01:21 Millitron wrote:On April 19 2013 00:45 BronzeKnee wrote:On April 19 2013 00:10 Millitron wrote:
I think its funny that people in this thread are trying to say that pro-gun people are only defending semi-automatics, and that we're all fine with fully-automatic guns being restricted. I'm certainly not. I would absolutely have fully-automatic guns be legal. I'm arguing for semi-automatics to be legal right now because that's a more pressing issue, that's a battle I might be able to win. The fight for fully-automatic guns is over for now, no point in arguing for them until everyone agrees semi's should be legal.
If you want me to argue for fully-automatics as well, I totally can. Honestly, most of the arguments are the same. No. Let's get straight to the point and argue about nuclear weapons. Since the Second Amendment is supposed to give us the ability to overthrow an oppressive government by arming citizens, why can we have nuclear weapons since they are a part of modern warfare? And honestly, most of the arguments are the same, as you said (There are even some better arguments, no one has died from private nuclear weapons in America, so they are obviously 100% safe)! And that is why the logic is flawed and wrong, whether it be applied to semi-auto, full-auto, or nuclear weapons.On April 18 2013 23:42 Kimaker wrote:
As such, I strongly support a land requirement to vote at the Federal Level. Seems arbitrary? Because it is. No, it actually just seems idiotic. When you're born, you don't own land. So when you the draft comes and scoops you up at 18 years old just as you graduate high school and ships you off to war, you have no voice. That is wrong, just as it was wrong when the voting age was higher than the draft age. And that was changed too. Sadly, that is only one of the many reason that idea is idiotic. But based on your posts I'm guessing you a right winger, and want to skew the elections in the right's favor, which is exactly what a law like this would do. Just the same as the people who want the Republican legislature in Michigan and other Blue states to divide their electoral votes rather than the use the winner takes all system. This change would allow Romney to win, even though he got destroyed in the popular vote. Of course that don't want that same system to apply to Texas and the Red States, because then Obama would still win. Your change doesn't lead us to a better form of Democracy or a Republic, it is beginning of an Oligarchy by definition. "Oligarchy (from Greek ὀλιγαρχία (oligarkhía); from ὀλίγος (olígos), meaning "few", and ἄρχω (arkho), meaning "to rule or to command")[1][2][3] is a form of power structure in which power effectively rests with a small number of people. These people could be distinguished by royalty, wealth, family ties, education, corporate, or military control."On April 18 2013 23:42 Kimaker wrote:
We're so diametrically opposed, for either side to "win" is to attack the others very way of life. That's not a country. That's not a single people. The Right is always asking that, "why can't we both just live our lives the way we want?" You know who else used that argument? Southern Slave owners. That isn't an argument, it is an excuse for bigots. No law, despite any amount of support locally, can threaten freedom. The Right doesn't seem to understand that. They don't understand why everyone deserves freedom. They fought against rights for the poor, for women, for African Americans and fight now against the freedom for gays to get married. You can use this a litmus test: When a way of life holds people hostage and denies them basic freedom, it has to change and deserves to be attacked. Nukes are a ridiculous strawman, and you know it. 1) The government doesn't actually use nukes, and if they ever did it'd be self-defeating. Any nation that uses nukes will immediately turn the rest of the world against them. Nukes aren't a part of modern warfare. I'm only arguing for the same weapons the government uses. If I can't have a semi-automatic rifle, a machine gun, a tank, or whatever, why should the government? They're just as human, and just as prone to misuse them. 2) Nukes are so expensive and hard to get, whole countries struggle with it. If some individual has the money and contacts to get one, they must be responsible enough to have it. You can't be crazy AND have that kind of power. They're so hard to get anyways, you don't really need laws banning it. And as for Kimaker's point, lets say you're a Northerner. What does it matter to you if the South has slaves? They want to secede and keep their slaves? How does that hurt you in any way? It's just like how in the past 20 years, we've been trying to spread democracy in the Middle East. It doesn't work for them, and they don't want it (generally, I know, Arab Spring, etc), why should we force it down their throats? You say that nukes are a ridiculous straw man, and then say that if someone had enough money to buy them they should be able to. Also, "You can't be crazy AND have that kind of power" is incorrect and you know it. Buying a nuclear weapon makes you responsible? What? You're defending slavery? It's statements like these that make me confused when I hear libertarians talk. I understand that you has this vast infallible theory about how everyone should have maximum freedoms and anything that wouldn't necessarily hurt someone should be legal, but when has letting everyone do whatever they want worked? Sometimes I feel like libertarians border on anarchism and want to jut go back to the wild west and lose all the rules of modern society completely. How are crazy people going to get the money and contacts to get a nuke? Remember, crazy people aren't exactly great at maintaining relationships or managing finances. Only a sane, responsible person would be able to manage their social networks and funds well enough to actually get a nuke. And besides, as I've said before, its a totally different issue anyways. The government doesn't use nukes, so it doesn't really matter if civilians can have them too. I'm not defending slavery, I'm defending some other country's right to decide for themselves. The South wasn't trying to force the North to have slavery, they just wanted out. If you don't want slavery, good for you, that can be the law in your country. Isn't self-determination something you on the left want? You're always going on and on about giving people a voice, and letting them decide for themselves.
Don't you see the irony, or are you really claiming that slaves are not people ?
|
Nukes and slavery/secession kind of seem irrelevant to this discussion, tbh, don't know why everyone is talking about them rather than... guns.
|
How is it irrational paranoia when one of our closest allies did exactly that? Maybe you are right and a similar ban won't happen for 100s of years, but we have no way of knowing. And yes, making a law that many people simply won't follow isn't something that should happen overnight without an extremely good reason... in fact if there was such a good reason you might be able to convince them over the course of a few months/years to agree with the proposed law. Alas, a gun registry is not so one-sided as you seem to think it is.
Using 'can benefit society' as sufficient justification for a new law is of course rather ridiculous and I hope you didn't mean it literally.
"Hey look, another country did it. We're in danger of it!"
It's irrational, plain and simple. The U.K. runs under an entirely different set of laws. They don't have the second amendment, and if someone believes that, between the second amendment existing and the NRA/Republican party existing, we're going to magically ban gun possession, they are paranoid and delusional. In fact, countless Republicans have proven, time and time again, that they operate on nonsensical logical leaps, pseudo-science, or plain irrationality and stubbornness. It really isn't hard to see if you pay attention to politics in this country.
And again, "A bunch of right-wing nutjobs won't follow this law) isn't a good excuse to just not try to do something positive. This country is a complete joke already. It's about time we stop letting nutjob conservatives hold us politically hostage.
I'm not defending slavery, I'm defending some other country's right to decide for themselves. The South wasn't trying to force the North to have slavery, they just wanted out. If you don't want slavery, good for you, that can be the law in your country. Isn't self-determination something you on the left want? You're always going on and on about giving people a voice, and letting them decide for themselves.
Self-determination ends when you treat an entire class of people as sub-human, prohibiting them from their own freedom to self-determination.
|
On April 18 2013 21:06 Kimaker wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2013 13:49 Defacer wrote:On April 18 2013 13:23 Millitron wrote:
You want to require background checks for private sales? Good luck enforcing it. Not like that'd stop straw purchasing anyways.
I just want to say that there isn't a law in the land that is enforced 100% of the time. It's like speeding. You can't pull everyone over. But you pull people over sometimes to discourage everyone else from driving like fucking maniacs. And if you're caught too many times they impound your car. The primary difference being that speeding laws do not place undue bureaucratic processes and responsibilities on legal and responsible drivers. A better analogy would be the issuance of drivers licenses and the requirement for car insurance.
I was just responding to the silliness of the argument that a lot of pro-gun advocates make (not just you).
It goes: "Good luck trying to enforce THAT! You can't enforce that 100% of the time so that's pointless anyway!"
It's a weak argument that pro-gun guys should let go of, because a:
a) it's a strawman argument, and not how the law is or ever has been implemented or enforced. It makes you seem like you're disconnected from society and how it actually functions.
b) it's been proven, time and time again, that you don't need to enforce a law or police all people perfectly for a law to impact a majority of people's behaviour.
For example, I don't to speed or drive without a driver's license. It's not because I think there's a cop around every corner watching me, it's because I'm aware of the consequences on the the off-chance that I do get caught, and how much they suck.
But to address your analogy, yes, personally I think there should be a much stronger bureaucratic process that DISTINGUISHES responsible, capable gun owners from irresponsible ones, similar to getting a Driver's license.
Gun owners insist that a grand majority of gun owners are responsible or know what they're doing. Well, for the benefit of public safety, they should prove it. Right now the standards are so low that a feeble, half-blind old lady or a autistic psychopath can get a gun, legally.
It's harder to get a job at McDonald's than to get a gun.
That's my problem with most Pro-gun advocacy (I'm not talking about you specifically). They always seem to approach the argument from an all or nothing position, and equate 'gun freedom' with 'any law-abiding citizen should be able to get any gun they want'. When you step back and think about that position, it's preposterous — there are people, even lovable people with the best intentions in the world, that are just going be shitty with guns, and have no place using them.
For example, my mother can't turn on a computer or kill a spider. I have a hard time imagining her, regardless of training, being qualified to use an AR-15.
Personally, I would support ideas like concealed carry, background check-free private sales, or even legalizing automatic weapons IF there was a strong system that rewarded competent and responsible gun owners.
|
On April 19 2013 02:08 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2013 02:04 Millitron wrote:On April 19 2013 01:50 ZackAttack wrote:On April 19 2013 01:21 Millitron wrote:On April 19 2013 00:45 BronzeKnee wrote:On April 19 2013 00:10 Millitron wrote:
I think its funny that people in this thread are trying to say that pro-gun people are only defending semi-automatics, and that we're all fine with fully-automatic guns being restricted. I'm certainly not. I would absolutely have fully-automatic guns be legal. I'm arguing for semi-automatics to be legal right now because that's a more pressing issue, that's a battle I might be able to win. The fight for fully-automatic guns is over for now, no point in arguing for them until everyone agrees semi's should be legal.
If you want me to argue for fully-automatics as well, I totally can. Honestly, most of the arguments are the same. No. Let's get straight to the point and argue about nuclear weapons. Since the Second Amendment is supposed to give us the ability to overthrow an oppressive government by arming citizens, why can we have nuclear weapons since they are a part of modern warfare? And honestly, most of the arguments are the same, as you said (There are even some better arguments, no one has died from private nuclear weapons in America, so they are obviously 100% safe)! And that is why the logic is flawed and wrong, whether it be applied to semi-auto, full-auto, or nuclear weapons.On April 18 2013 23:42 Kimaker wrote:
As such, I strongly support a land requirement to vote at the Federal Level. Seems arbitrary? Because it is. No, it actually just seems idiotic. When you're born, you don't own land. So when you the draft comes and scoops you up at 18 years old just as you graduate high school and ships you off to war, you have no voice. That is wrong, just as it was wrong when the voting age was higher than the draft age. And that was changed too. Sadly, that is only one of the many reason that idea is idiotic. But based on your posts I'm guessing you a right winger, and want to skew the elections in the right's favor, which is exactly what a law like this would do. Just the same as the people who want the Republican legislature in Michigan and other Blue states to divide their electoral votes rather than the use the winner takes all system. This change would allow Romney to win, even though he got destroyed in the popular vote. Of course that don't want that same system to apply to Texas and the Red States, because then Obama would still win. Your change doesn't lead us to a better form of Democracy or a Republic, it is beginning of an Oligarchy by definition. "Oligarchy (from Greek ὀλιγαρχία (oligarkhía); from ὀλίγος (olígos), meaning "few", and ἄρχω (arkho), meaning "to rule or to command")[1][2][3] is a form of power structure in which power effectively rests with a small number of people. These people could be distinguished by royalty, wealth, family ties, education, corporate, or military control."On April 18 2013 23:42 Kimaker wrote:
We're so diametrically opposed, for either side to "win" is to attack the others very way of life. That's not a country. That's not a single people. The Right is always asking that, "why can't we both just live our lives the way we want?" You know who else used that argument? Southern Slave owners. That isn't an argument, it is an excuse for bigots. No law, despite any amount of support locally, can threaten freedom. The Right doesn't seem to understand that. They don't understand why everyone deserves freedom. They fought against rights for the poor, for women, for African Americans and fight now against the freedom for gays to get married. You can use this a litmus test: When a way of life holds people hostage and denies them basic freedom, it has to change and deserves to be attacked. Nukes are a ridiculous strawman, and you know it. 1) The government doesn't actually use nukes, and if they ever did it'd be self-defeating. Any nation that uses nukes will immediately turn the rest of the world against them. Nukes aren't a part of modern warfare. I'm only arguing for the same weapons the government uses. If I can't have a semi-automatic rifle, a machine gun, a tank, or whatever, why should the government? They're just as human, and just as prone to misuse them. 2) Nukes are so expensive and hard to get, whole countries struggle with it. If some individual has the money and contacts to get one, they must be responsible enough to have it. You can't be crazy AND have that kind of power. They're so hard to get anyways, you don't really need laws banning it. And as for Kimaker's point, lets say you're a Northerner. What does it matter to you if the South has slaves? They want to secede and keep their slaves? How does that hurt you in any way? It's just like how in the past 20 years, we've been trying to spread democracy in the Middle East. It doesn't work for them, and they don't want it (generally, I know, Arab Spring, etc), why should we force it down their throats? You say that nukes are a ridiculous straw man, and then say that if someone had enough money to buy them they should be able to. Also, "You can't be crazy AND have that kind of power" is incorrect and you know it. Buying a nuclear weapon makes you responsible? What? You're defending slavery? It's statements like these that make me confused when I hear libertarians talk. I understand that you has this vast infallible theory about how everyone should have maximum freedoms and anything that wouldn't necessarily hurt someone should be legal, but when has letting everyone do whatever they want worked? Sometimes I feel like libertarians border on anarchism and want to jut go back to the wild west and lose all the rules of modern society completely. How are crazy people going to get the money and contacts to get a nuke? Remember, crazy people aren't exactly great at maintaining relationships or managing finances. Only a sane, responsible person would be able to manage their social networks and funds well enough to actually get a nuke. And besides, as I've said before, its a totally different issue anyways. The government doesn't use nukes, so it doesn't really matter if civilians can have them too. I'm not defending slavery, I'm defending some other country's right to decide for themselves. The South wasn't trying to force the North to have slavery, they just wanted out. If you don't want slavery, good for you, that can be the law in your country. Isn't self-determination something you on the left want? You're always going on and on about giving people a voice, and letting them decide for themselves. Don't you see the irony, or are you really claiming that slaves are not people ?
They are people. I wouldn't have slavery in my country, but I also wouldn't try to tell the South they can't have slaves.
On April 19 2013 02:08 sc2superfan101 wrote:
Nukes and slavery/secession kind of seem irrelevant to this discussion, tbh, don't know why everyone is talking about them rather than... guns.
BronzeKnee made the leap from guns to nukes, because lol slippery slope. Slavery/Secession came up because Kimaker brought up culture and how the Left and Right are practically two different countries.
|
On April 19 2013 02:04 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2013 01:50 ZackAttack wrote:On April 19 2013 01:21 Millitron wrote:On April 19 2013 00:45 BronzeKnee wrote:On April 19 2013 00:10 Millitron wrote:
I think its funny that people in this thread are trying to say that pro-gun people are only defending semi-automatics, and that we're all fine with fully-automatic guns being restricted. I'm certainly not. I would absolutely have fully-automatic guns be legal. I'm arguing for semi-automatics to be legal right now because that's a more pressing issue, that's a battle I might be able to win. The fight for fully-automatic guns is over for now, no point in arguing for them until everyone agrees semi's should be legal.
If you want me to argue for fully-automatics as well, I totally can. Honestly, most of the arguments are the same. No. Let's get straight to the point and argue about nuclear weapons. Since the Second Amendment is supposed to give us the ability to overthrow an oppressive government by arming citizens, why can we have nuclear weapons since they are a part of modern warfare? And honestly, most of the arguments are the same, as you said (There are even some better arguments, no one has died from private nuclear weapons in America, so they are obviously 100% safe)! And that is why the logic is flawed and wrong, whether it be applied to semi-auto, full-auto, or nuclear weapons.On April 18 2013 23:42 Kimaker wrote:
As such, I strongly support a land requirement to vote at the Federal Level. Seems arbitrary? Because it is. No, it actually just seems idiotic. When you're born, you don't own land. So when you the draft comes and scoops you up at 18 years old just as you graduate high school and ships you off to war, you have no voice. That is wrong, just as it was wrong when the voting age was higher than the draft age. And that was changed too. Sadly, that is only one of the many reason that idea is idiotic. But based on your posts I'm guessing you a right winger, and want to skew the elections in the right's favor, which is exactly what a law like this would do. Just the same as the people who want the Republican legislature in Michigan and other Blue states to divide their electoral votes rather than the use the winner takes all system. This change would allow Romney to win, even though he got destroyed in the popular vote. Of course that don't want that same system to apply to Texas and the Red States, because then Obama would still win. Your change doesn't lead us to a better form of Democracy or a Republic, it is beginning of an Oligarchy by definition. "Oligarchy (from Greek ὀλιγαρχία (oligarkhía); from ὀλίγος (olígos), meaning "few", and ἄρχω (arkho), meaning "to rule or to command")[1][2][3] is a form of power structure in which power effectively rests with a small number of people. These people could be distinguished by royalty, wealth, family ties, education, corporate, or military control."On April 18 2013 23:42 Kimaker wrote:
We're so diametrically opposed, for either side to "win" is to attack the others very way of life. That's not a country. That's not a single people. The Right is always asking that, "why can't we both just live our lives the way we want?" You know who else used that argument? Southern Slave owners. That isn't an argument, it is an excuse for bigots. No law, despite any amount of support locally, can threaten freedom. The Right doesn't seem to understand that. They don't understand why everyone deserves freedom. They fought against rights for the poor, for women, for African Americans and fight now against the freedom for gays to get married. You can use this a litmus test: When a way of life holds people hostage and denies them basic freedom, it has to change and deserves to be attacked. Nukes are a ridiculous strawman, and you know it. 1) The government doesn't actually use nukes, and if they ever did it'd be self-defeating. Any nation that uses nukes will immediately turn the rest of the world against them. Nukes aren't a part of modern warfare. I'm only arguing for the same weapons the government uses. If I can't have a semi-automatic rifle, a machine gun, a tank, or whatever, why should the government? They're just as human, and just as prone to misuse them. 2) Nukes are so expensive and hard to get, whole countries struggle with it. If some individual has the money and contacts to get one, they must be responsible enough to have it. You can't be crazy AND have that kind of power. They're so hard to get anyways, you don't really need laws banning it. And as for Kimaker's point, lets say you're a Northerner. What does it matter to you if the South has slaves? They want to secede and keep their slaves? How does that hurt you in any way? It's just like how in the past 20 years, we've been trying to spread democracy in the Middle East. It doesn't work for them, and they don't want it (generally, I know, Arab Spring, etc), why should we force it down their throats? You say that nukes are a ridiculous straw man, and then say that if someone had enough money to buy them they should be able to. Also, "You can't be crazy AND have that kind of power" is incorrect and you know it. Buying a nuclear weapon makes you responsible? What? You're defending slavery? It's statements like these that make me confused when I hear libertarians talk. I understand that you has this vast infallible theory about how everyone should have maximum freedoms and anything that wouldn't necessarily hurt someone should be legal, but when has letting everyone do whatever they want worked? Sometimes I feel like libertarians border on anarchism and want to jut go back to the wild west and lose all the rules of modern society completely. How are crazy people going to get the money and contacts to get a nuke? Remember, crazy people aren't exactly great at maintaining relationships or managing finances. Only a sane, responsible person would be able to manage their social networks and funds well enough to actually get a nuke. And besides, as I've said before, its a totally different issue anyways. The government doesn't use nukes, so it doesn't really matter if civilians can have them too. I'm not defending slavery, I'm defending some other country's right to decide for themselves. The South wasn't trying to force the North to have slavery, they just wanted out. If you don't want slavery, good for you, that can be the law in your country. Isn't self-determination something you on the left want? You're always going on and on about giving people a voice, and letting them decide for themselves.
I don't think you're going about this argument the right way.
If you believe in self determination, I would assume you'd oppose slavery. If someone tried to enslave a friend or a neighbor, I think I would fight to free him.
However, this doesn't apply to the Civil War, because it wasn't fought over slavery. Lincoln hated blacks, and was open to shipping them all back to Africa, and even was willing to let the South keep the slaves if they signed a peace treaty. Contrast southern general Robert E. Lee, who disliked slavery, and the northern general Grant, who owned many slaves. Slavery was a dying institution around the world anyway and would not have lasted much longer in the South. The idea of fighting the civil war to end slavery was a myth.
Basically, the Civil War was fought to keep the union together. Worth all of the deaths and burning half the country to the ground to keep the union together and end slavery a decade or two earlier than it would have naturally? I think not.
|
They are people. I wouldn't have slavery in my country, but I also wouldn't try to tell the South they can't have slaves.
I would. That's because I'm a decent human being.
Human rights trump self-determination and this is a widely accepted fact. By allowing the South to have slaves, you are saying that it's ok for them to not allow slaves the freedom of self-determination. You're sticking to obscure ideology for the sake of ideology (and contradicting yourself in the process), and people that do that are some of the worst kinds of people in politics.
|
On April 19 2013 01:29 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2013 00:45 BronzeKnee wrote:On April 19 2013 00:10 Millitron wrote:
I think its funny that people in this thread are trying to say that pro-gun people are only defending semi-automatics, and that we're all fine with fully-automatic guns being restricted. I'm certainly not. I would absolutely have fully-automatic guns be legal. I'm arguing for semi-automatics to be legal right now because that's a more pressing issue, that's a battle I might be able to win. The fight for fully-automatic guns is over for now, no point in arguing for them until everyone agrees semi's should be legal.
If you want me to argue for fully-automatics as well, I totally can. Honestly, most of the arguments are the same. No. Let's get straight to the point and argue about nuclear weapons. Since the Second Amendment is supposed to give us the ability to overthrow an oppressive government by arming citizens, why can we have nuclear weapons since they are a part of modern warfare? And honestly, most of the arguments are the same, as you said (There are even some better arguments, no one has died from private nuclear weapons in America, so they are obviously 100% safe)! And that is why the logic is flawed and wrong, whether it be applied to semi-auto, full-auto, or nuclear weapons. Well, for one, nuclear weapons aren't really a part of modern warfare, nor would they be useful in any way in an actual civil-war scenario, for either side. If there was some kind of massive, country-wide revolt against the government, they can't exactly just start nuking their own people. Public opinion would destroy them at that point, even if no one but rebels died in the nuclear blast. Plus the damage they would be wreaking upon their own environment, economy, and people would be so catastrophic and massive that the result would be worse than even a revolt could be. For the rebels, nukes would be equally useless for largely the same reasons. Following that logic, we can talk about drones, tanks, and all the rest of that high-tech, mass-destruction stuff. All of that is useless in the kind of war that a revolt against the US government would result in. You can't use that stuff on your own civilian population without turning public opinion against yourself so much that you'd lose the war anyway. Furthermore, our military would see massive abandonment by it's own troops if any kind of force like that was used against civilian populations. Guns are a pretty good deterrent to an overreach of the federal/state governments. A lack of guns isn't necessarily going to guarantee the formation of a despotic totalitarian government, but an abundance of guns, combined with the historical freedoms and education which our citizens posses, can keep said totalitarianism from even beginning to form. Furthermore, the purpose of the Second Amendment is not only to give you the ability to fight back against an oppressive government. It is also a deterrent to foreign invasion, and more importantly a guarantee of the private citizen to be able to secure and protect his own property and family. Nuclear weapons, and other weapons of mass, indiscriminate destruction are not necessary for any of the main arguments why the Second Amendment exists. A grenade is not a useful tool for protecting property and people. It is not necessary to deter foreign invasion, nor is it necessary to engage in resistance to a hostile, oppressive government. This is all ignoring the fact that your nuclear weapon/grenade/tank argument is actually the fallacy of the slippery slope.
historical freedoms and education which our citizens posses and wealth are the only things standing between you and totalitarianism. Guns play insignificant role compared to that. That argument is completely based on premises that ignore actual history. Oppressive governments are not separate from the population they govern, they always have high degree of support from local population and even higher degree of indifference from local population. Meaning that you cannot count on too much of a majority to support the uprising. That means if army is with the government, they are safe, if not they are doomed anyway, citizens guns being irrelevant. If government has little support from the populace it will fall anyway no matter what army decides to do and how armed is the populace.
As for deterring foreign invasion, yes, 200 years ago, and even then not a big one. It is absolutely no deterrent for invasion today.
The only arguments for gun rights that might turn out to be rational come from self-defense and other similar points.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
