|
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 19 2013 02:16 SpeaKEaSY 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. + Show Spoiler +
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.
I'm gonna spoil this because its really off-topic, but:
+ Show Spoiler +Lincoln hated blacks? Got any evidence of that at all? He was open to shipping them back to Africa until he found out that they didn't want that, and furthermore, was only "open" to the idea because he was more concerned with the Union than with slavery. His main concern was with Union does not mean that he doesn't care about slavery. Get real.
Now, seriously, the slavery thing has gone waaaay off topic. You aren't even trying to connect it with guns anymore.
|
On April 19 2013 02:20 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2013 01:29 sc2superfan101 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. 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.
Not only that, "taking away the gunz!!!" isn't even close to the biggest threat to freedom in this country. Conservatives trying to legislate morality are a huge danger, as so many dictatorial regimes are/were built on that premise.
|
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.
Well, probably because actual gun issues were talked over n times already.
The whole gun issue will solve itself as all societal issues do. In time. With current trends (so barring major economical and social disaster) sooner or later gun ownership will drop until it becomes small minority issue and majority will then just easily do whatever they want to do about that whole issue. Probably something like most other wealthy countries.
|
On April 19 2013 02:20 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2013 01:29 sc2superfan101 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. 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.
Guns do play a role, just as education, wealth, and tradition play roles. We can argue about how large a role they play, but at the end of the day, a government must necessarily be more wary of an armed populace than an unarmed one. Point to me the history that proves guns are irrelevant to the discussion. Oppressive governments do not always have majority support, in fact, they usually don't when they begin (revolution). Usually it is a violent minority that takes power and forces the semblance of majority support through re-education and persecution. The military being with the government is an important question, of course, but what of when the military splits? Or if the military largely stays with the government, does all resistance end? Should the resistance just lay down and die because the military is against them? Guns would then become all the more important in that scenario. Many governments have existed without true popular support. The ability of them to exist and remain existing is proportional to the inability of the populace to express, with force, their displeasure.
It is absolutely a deterrent, though that is more irrelevant due to our position as the worlds only military super-power. 100 million armed citizens on top of the military would make an invasion almost impossible to effectively execute, and would make occupation a bitter fantasy.
Self-defense is obviously the most relevant, but the other arguments, more original in nature, are still rational.
|
On April 19 2013 02:24 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +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. Well, probably because actual gun issues were talked over n times already. The whole gun issue will solve itself as all societal issues do. In time. With current trends (so barring major economical and social disaster) sooner or later gun ownership will drop until it becomes small minority issue and majority will then just easily do whatever they want to do about that whole issue. Probably something like most other wealthy countries.
Except gun sales and ownership are up... and have been going up for some time...
|
On April 19 2013 02:15 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2013 02:08 mcc wrote: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. Show nested quote +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.
Ah, ok, you are one of those moral relativists.
|
On April 19 2013 02:22 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2013 02:16 SpeaKEaSY wrote: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. + Show Spoiler +
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.
I'm gonna spoil this because its really off-topic, but: + Show Spoiler +Lincoln hated blacks? Got any evidence of that at all? He was open to shipping them back to Africa until he found out that they didn't want that, and furthermore, was only "open" to the idea because he was more concerned with the Union than with slavery. His main concern was with Union does not mean that he doesn't care about slavery. Get real. Now, seriously, the slavery thing has gone waaaay off topic. You aren't even trying to connect it with guns anymore.
From Time:
Lincoln was a crude bigot who habitually used the N word and had an unquenchable thirst for blackface-minstrel shows and demeaning "darky" jokes. He supported the noxious pre-Civil War "Black Laws," which stripped African Americans of their basic rights in his native Illinois, as well as the Fugitive Slave Act, which compelled the return to their masters of those who had escaped to free soil in the North.
But it's not politically correct to mention this, so it doesn't get mentioned in history class.
Slavery does tie in to the ownership of guns though, because a free man has the right to defend himself, so by depriving a free man the right to bear arms, you are depriving him of the right to self defense. Which, incidentally, makes it a lot easier to make that man no longer free.
|
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.
Lets phrase the part regarding the rights of the poor differently - if you don't believe that the poor have an atheist-given right to other peoples money and that this constitutes freedom, if you are revolted by a socialist society in which it is considered preferable that everyone is poorer just as long as the rich are as well, you should just shut up you would-be slave-owning bigot. And don't you dare favor equality of opportunity over equality of outcome either.
With more honesty and less demagoguery - If you dare to not tow the party line about everything from how some gay people want the right to have government dictate to Christians how their religion should be practiced, to women's "right" to kill their unborn children, to not wanting to listen to the ubiquitous leftist and actually subscribe to a colorblind society in which everyone is judged by the same criteria and the term positive discrimination is anathema - you should watch your back, you might suffer for your beliefs.
If you're openly on the right in America - at the very least in the blue states - you're going to be self-righteously discriminated against in many facets of life where the state has a say - hell, the fourth estate and academia are so corrupt it's breathtaking. And we're the fascists, the bigots, the evil ones? A previous poster is right - two cultures, one set of borders.
Apologies for any spelling errors etc., not my first language and I have the flu. And apologies for derailing the thread.
|
On April 19 2013 02:33 SpeaKEaSY wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2013 02:22 sc2superfan101 wrote:On April 19 2013 02:16 SpeaKEaSY wrote: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. + Show Spoiler +
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.
I'm gonna spoil this because its really off-topic, but: + Show Spoiler +Lincoln hated blacks? Got any evidence of that at all? He was open to shipping them back to Africa until he found out that they didn't want that, and furthermore, was only "open" to the idea because he was more concerned with the Union than with slavery. His main concern was with Union does not mean that he doesn't care about slavery. Get real. Now, seriously, the slavery thing has gone waaaay off topic. You aren't even trying to connect it with guns anymore. From Time: Lincoln was a crude bigot who habitually used the N word and had an unquenchable thirst for blackface-minstrel shows and demeaning "darky" jokes. He supported the noxious pre-Civil War "Black Laws," which stripped African Americans of their basic rights in his native Illinois, as well as the Fugitive Slave Act, which compelled the return to their masters of those who had escaped to free soil in the North. But it's not politically correct to mention this, so it doesn't get mentioned in history class.
Says a guy who wrote a book that TIME is reviewing...
|
i'm baffled that people still think that dems and republicans are vastly different beside some few hot button issues. time and time again government does the same shit whether dem controlled or republican controlled
On April 19 2013 02:32 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2013 02:24 mcc wrote: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. Well, probably because actual gun issues were talked over n times already. The whole gun issue will solve itself as all societal issues do. In time. With current trends (so barring major economical and social disaster) sooner or later gun ownership will drop until it becomes small minority issue and majority will then just easily do whatever they want to do about that whole issue. Probably something like most other wealthy countries. Except gun sales and ownership are up... and have been going up for some time...
shh dont spoil his world where america will assimilate to his culture in time. it might spoil his dream!
|
On April 19 2013 02:36 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2013 02:33 SpeaKEaSY wrote:On April 19 2013 02:22 sc2superfan101 wrote:On April 19 2013 02:16 SpeaKEaSY wrote: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. + Show Spoiler +
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.
I'm gonna spoil this because its really off-topic, but: + Show Spoiler +Lincoln hated blacks? Got any evidence of that at all? He was open to shipping them back to Africa until he found out that they didn't want that, and furthermore, was only "open" to the idea because he was more concerned with the Union than with slavery. His main concern was with Union does not mean that he doesn't care about slavery. Get real. Now, seriously, the slavery thing has gone waaaay off topic. You aren't even trying to connect it with guns anymore. From Time: Lincoln was a crude bigot who habitually used the N word and had an unquenchable thirst for blackface-minstrel shows and demeaning "darky" jokes. He supported the noxious pre-Civil War "Black Laws," which stripped African Americans of their basic rights in his native Illinois, as well as the Fugitive Slave Act, which compelled the return to their masters of those who had escaped to free soil in the North. But it's not politically correct to mention this, so it doesn't get mentioned in history class. Says a guy who wrote a book that TIME is reviewing...
And which Time says is adequately researched and factually accurate and is questioning why it's not getting more attention...
You act like the guy is writing a book of fiction.
|
On April 19 2013 02:20 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +
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.
Isn't self-determination a human right? Aren't you infringing on the South's self-determination?
You realize we still sort of have slavery right? Prisons use chain gangs for manual labor against their will all the time. Are you OK with that?
|
On April 19 2013 02:37 FrankWalls wrote:i'm baffled that people still think that dems and republicans are vastly different beside some few hot button issues. time and time again government does the same shit whether dem controlled or republican controlled Show nested quote +On April 19 2013 02:32 sc2superfan101 wrote:On April 19 2013 02:24 mcc wrote: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. Well, probably because actual gun issues were talked over n times already. The whole gun issue will solve itself as all societal issues do. In time. With current trends (so barring major economical and social disaster) sooner or later gun ownership will drop until it becomes small minority issue and majority will then just easily do whatever they want to do about that whole issue. Probably something like most other wealthy countries. Except gun sales and ownership are up... and have been going up for some time... shh don't spoil his world where america will assimilate to his culture in time. it might spoil his dream!
But they are different. If you look at any recent election there are huge racial divides for minorities, People living just outside of a country that's filled with a single city. Its not even regional divides anymore its racial and country divides that define national politics.
No where else other then gun control is this any more prevalent. People who live in the city by and far believe in gun control because they see gun violence first hand all the time. No one can get elected by "blaming the minorities" so instead the entire political structure is based on blaming the guns. You leave the city where there isn't gun violence and there is a positive attitude tword guns and the local security that the towns feel with guns and you get these easily fooled people into believing that the city folk want to take your guns and take away your security. Both sides use emotional arguments so easily and so effectively that there really can't be compromise's or barely any sensible debate.
|
On April 19 2013 02:42 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2013 02:20 Stratos_speAr wrote:
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. Isn't self-determination a human right? Aren't you infringing on the South's self-determination? You realize we still sort of have slavery right? Prisons use chain gangs for manual labor against their will all the time. Are you OK with that?
But only humans can have human rights. The "South" is not a human. Allowing the rights of real human beings to be infringed upon in slavery for the benefit of an arbitrary geographical region is misunderstanding the concept.
|
On April 19 2013 02:42 SpeaKEaSY wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2013 02:36 sc2superfan101 wrote:On April 19 2013 02:33 SpeaKEaSY wrote:On April 19 2013 02:22 sc2superfan101 wrote:On April 19 2013 02:16 SpeaKEaSY wrote: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. + Show Spoiler +
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.
I'm gonna spoil this because its really off-topic, but: + Show Spoiler +Lincoln hated blacks? Got any evidence of that at all? He was open to shipping them back to Africa until he found out that they didn't want that, and furthermore, was only "open" to the idea because he was more concerned with the Union than with slavery. His main concern was with Union does not mean that he doesn't care about slavery. Get real. Now, seriously, the slavery thing has gone waaaay off topic. You aren't even trying to connect it with guns anymore. From Time: Lincoln was a crude bigot who habitually used the N word and had an unquenchable thirst for blackface-minstrel shows and demeaning "darky" jokes. He supported the noxious pre-Civil War "Black Laws," which stripped African Americans of their basic rights in his native Illinois, as well as the Fugitive Slave Act, which compelled the return to their masters of those who had escaped to free soil in the North. But it's not politically correct to mention this, so it doesn't get mentioned in history class. Says a guy who wrote a book that TIME is reviewing... And which Time says is adequately researched and factually accurate and is questioning why it's not getting more attention... You act like the guy is writing a book of fiction.
And there is a plethora of historians who disagree with him, which are dealt with by the accusation that they are just white people trying to whitewash history. This really isn't the place for this argument though, so I'll just leave it at that.
|
On April 19 2013 02:46 SpeaKEaSY wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2013 02:42 Millitron wrote:On April 19 2013 02:20 Stratos_speAr wrote:
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. Isn't self-determination a human right? Aren't you infringing on the South's self-determination? You realize we still sort of have slavery right? Prisons use chain gangs for manual labor against their will all the time. Are you OK with that? But only humans can have human rights. The "South" is not a human. Allowing the rights of real human beings to be infringed upon in slavery for the benefit of an arbitrary geographical region is misunderstanding the concept.
The "South" is a group of humans, each of which has the right to self-determination. Ergo, the "South" does have the right to self-determination; its the sum of the self-determination of its members.
|
On April 19 2013 02:42 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2013 02:20 Stratos_speAr wrote:
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. Isn't self-determination a human right? Aren't you infringing on the South's self-determination? You realize we still sort of have slavery right? Prisons use chain gangs for manual labor against their will all the time. Are you OK with that?
are you even trying to make a reasonable point?
because it certainly doesnt seem so.
|
On April 19 2013 02:31 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2013 02:20 mcc wrote:On April 19 2013 01:29 sc2superfan101 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. 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. Guns do play a role, just as education, wealth, and tradition play roles. We can argue about how large a role they play, but at the end of the day, a government must necessarily be more wary of an armed populace than an unarmed one. Point to me the history that proves guns are irrelevant to the discussion. Oppressive governments do not always have majority support, in fact, they usually don't when they begin (revolution). Usually it is a violent minority that takes power and forces the semblance of majority support through re-education and persecution. The military being with the government is an important question, of course, but what of when the military splits? Or if the military largely stays with the government, does all resistance end? Should the resistance just lay down and die because the military is against them? Guns would then become all the more important in that scenario. Many governments have existed without true popular support. The ability of them to exist and remain existing is proportional to the inability of the populace to express, with force, their displeasure. It is absolutely a deterrent, though that is more irrelevant due to our position as the worlds only military super-power. 100 million armed citizens on top of the military would make an invasion almost impossible to effectively execute, and would make occupation a bitter fantasy. Self-defense is obviously the most relevant, but the other arguments, more original in nature, are still rational.
The historical experience that I am talking about is that people revolt successfully guns or no guns. The only relevant factor always (in the long term) is how much support that particular revolt has among the population. That level of support is affected by tradition, education, wealth, stability, not by gun ownership. Having a gun does not make me more likely to sympathise with particular movement. I said "high degree of support", not majority. Minority is enough if it is big enough  . Split army scenarios might be decided by armed populace. But only in like 1% (whatever is the actual number it is low) of possible splits. Is it worth it to accept all the bad things gun ownership brings for 1% chance of preventing something that will likely not even happen ? Basically it is non-factor in the calculation.
Nobody actually would invade US to occupy it, again guns or no guns. It is too costly no matter what. They would invade to inflict damage. And for that armed citizenry , and I mean armed with what is legal and reasonable to own, is absolutely no deterrent.
So first argument is non-argument because it solves low % of scenarios in a situation that is even more unlikely. Second argument does not apply due to realities of modern world. Only the last one remains.
|
On April 19 2013 02:47 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2013 02:42 SpeaKEaSY wrote:On April 19 2013 02:36 sc2superfan101 wrote:On April 19 2013 02:33 SpeaKEaSY wrote:On April 19 2013 02:22 sc2superfan101 wrote:On April 19 2013 02:16 SpeaKEaSY wrote: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:
[quote]
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.
[quote]
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."
[quote]
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. + Show Spoiler +
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.
I'm gonna spoil this because its really off-topic, but: + Show Spoiler +Lincoln hated blacks? Got any evidence of that at all? He was open to shipping them back to Africa until he found out that they didn't want that, and furthermore, was only "open" to the idea because he was more concerned with the Union than with slavery. His main concern was with Union does not mean that he doesn't care about slavery. Get real. Now, seriously, the slavery thing has gone waaaay off topic. You aren't even trying to connect it with guns anymore. From Time: Lincoln was a crude bigot who habitually used the N word and had an unquenchable thirst for blackface-minstrel shows and demeaning "darky" jokes. He supported the noxious pre-Civil War "Black Laws," which stripped African Americans of their basic rights in his native Illinois, as well as the Fugitive Slave Act, which compelled the return to their masters of those who had escaped to free soil in the North. But it's not politically correct to mention this, so it doesn't get mentioned in history class. Says a guy who wrote a book that TIME is reviewing... And which Time says is adequately researched and factually accurate and is questioning why it's not getting more attention... You act like the guy is writing a book of fiction. And there is a plethora of historians who disagree with him, which are dealt with by the accusation that they are just white people trying to whitewash history. This really isn't the place for this argument though, so I'll just leave it at that.
That's actually not at all what the article says, it says they acknowledge it but only in footnotes and asides. The question the article is raising is not whether or not Lincoln was a racist (despite the title), but why is it that Lincoln's racism gets glossed over so much?
|
On April 19 2013 02:32 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2013 02:24 mcc wrote: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. Well, probably because actual gun issues were talked over n times already. The whole gun issue will solve itself as all societal issues do. In time. With current trends (so barring major economical and social disaster) sooner or later gun ownership will drop until it becomes small minority issue and majority will then just easily do whatever they want to do about that whole issue. Probably something like most other wealthy countries. Except gun sales and ownership are up... and have been going up for some time...
I read that actual number of gun owners is down, but frankly that just determines if what I am describing will come sooner or later. The attitude shifts come in packages, being anti-gun is part of the package that is becoming more prevalent in the long run.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
