|
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 02:33 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. 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.
Do you know what a historical revisionist is?
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?
So your right to determine the customs of your culture can trump my right to the most basic of human rights, such as autonomy?
You realize that all you're advocating for is an incredibly extremist form of tyranny of the majority, right?
You have demonstrated why that event happening in another country does not necessarily mean it won't happen here. You have not made a strong case that it definitely won't happen here. Thus, people worry. In my state a new law was pushed through in a matter of hours which made it illegal to buy most types of guns sold. After weeks of pushback they finally made some revisions to make it less sweeping, but after seeing something like this happen I definitely believe it is possible for a federal-level bait and switch like the one that happened for all New Yorkers. The only difference which I must admit is that there was a grandfathering clause, but even that had severe limitations including inability to pass firearms on to family members upon death.
I'm not saying we should prepare for the inevitable, just that it's easy to assume there's no risk of civilian gun ownership legally going out the window within the next 20 years when such an eventuality would not affect your personal life.
It's not about proving that it "definitely won't happen here". The point is that having a national registry to assist in background checks has little to no influence on whether or not we will make a law that confiscates guns. If we did so, it would aid in the confiscation, but, as has already been pointed out, this is no different than saying that the census would aid the government in blackbagging all Christians (or brown-eyed people, or people over 6'0'') if they somehow made a law that allowed them to do so.
A background check law that makes a national registry does not magically lead to a gun confiscation law. These are completely separate topics, and it is completely illogical to shoot down background checks just because a national registry could be used to confiscate guns.
To argue that it would increase the chance of guns being confiscated, you would need to show how this law gives any kind of legal precedent or strength to a bill that would propose to confiscate all (or some) guns. If not, you need to accept that they are completely different issues and that you can fight a gun confiscation bill separately.
It would not just be nut-jobs.
You don't seem able to think about these issues objectively. Of course you have a reason to care deeply about the state of the country, but the way you say things about nutjobs, the country being a joke, and people holding each other politically hostage isn't accomplishing anything positive in this thread or elsewhere.
For the record I'm all for keeping guns out of the hands of people who obviously shouldn't have them or aren't willing to take good care of them and be responsible.
Language like "nutjobs" and "being a joke" may not be incredibly helpful, but a discussion about how certain groups in this country hold others politically hostage is incredibly relevant. Furthermore, even if my language is harsh, it doesn't detract from my point; these two hypothetical bills are completely different issues, and it is logically incoherent to ban one just because the other exists.
Not only that, it makes no sense to not enact a law just because a small but influential political group would refuse to obey the law. That pretty much is being held politically hostage. "I refuse to follow this law should you enact it because I don't agree with it ideologically, and I would cause a lot of trouble, so don't do anything about the subject!"
Really? There's a difference between civil disobedience and throwing around your incredibly imbalanced political influence to trash any efforts to fix an incredibly serious problem for a first world country just because you don't want your guns taken away. Civil disobedience is an act that forces the community to talk about the problem. What you are suggesting is the exact opposite; willfully breaking the law in the hopes that we abandon the discussion and the attempts at fixing the problem.
|
On April 19 2013 23:39 Stratos_speAr 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. 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. Do you know what a historical revisionist is? Show nested quote +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? So your right to determine the customs of your culture can trump my right to the most basic of human rights, such as autonomy? You realize that all you're advocating for is an incredibly extremist form of tyranny of the majority, right?
By modern standards Lincoln was certainly "Racist".
That being said Racist is an ill-defined word anyway with widely disparate applications. Is someone who believes there are inherent differences between races resulting from different evolutionary pressures a "racist? How about someone who thinks races should stay separated, but harbors no ill-will against other races? Are both of these on par with someone like Hitler who believed in exterminating certain races?
In colloquial terms, they're all "racist". Lincoln tended to fall somewhere between the first two descriptions (which I don't really consider "racist")
Also culture self-selects. You congregate with people who hold similar views, thus developing "cultures". If you disagree you can always congregate with more likeminded people instead. (obviously slave didn't have this option), but similarly, that was for those two culture to figure out. I'd have preferred if the South had been left to its devices. Inevitably there would have been a massive slave revolt (demographic differences between races were enormous already) and whites would have been forced to flee North. We'd have (essentially) a Black American State, and a White one, and both would have developed out of emergent processes and pressures precluding all of the racial tensions and social issues we now have.
...that or the North would have just claimed Southern lands as theirs and steamrolled them in a war...could have gone either way xD
|
United States24671 Posts
On April 19 2013 23:39 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +It would not just be nut-jobs.
You don't seem able to think about these issues objectively. Of course you have a reason to care deeply about the state of the country, but the way you say things about nutjobs, the country being a joke, and people holding each other politically hostage isn't accomplishing anything positive in this thread or elsewhere.
For the record I'm all for keeping guns out of the hands of people who obviously shouldn't have them or aren't willing to take good care of them and be responsible. Language like "nutjobs" and "being a joke" may not be incredibly helpful, but a discussion about how certain groups in this country hold others politically hostage is incredibly relevant. Furthermore, even if my language is harsh, it doesn't detract from my point; these two hypothetical bills are completely different issues, and it is logically incoherent to ban one just because the other exists. Not only that, it makes no sense to not enact a law just because a small but influential political group would refuse to obey the law. That pretty much is being held politically hostage. "I refuse to follow this law should you enact it because I don't agree with it ideologically, and I would cause a lot of trouble, so don't do anything about the subject!" Really? There's a difference between civil disobedience and throwing around your incredibly imbalanced political influence to trash any efforts to fix an incredibly serious problem for a first world country just because you don't want your guns taken away. Civil disobedience is an act that forces the community to talk about the problem. What you are suggesting is the exact opposite; willfully breaking the law in the hopes that we abandon the discussion and the attempts at fixing the problem.
You really should make sure to include the header in your quotes... it's hard for people to know who you are responding to.
We seem to disagree on how many people would not register their guns if it was currently made law. I think it's a good goal to work towards... to legitimately gain the trust of gun owners that we want common sense reform that will decrease unnecessary gun violence without simply banning most/all guns. In the meantime, however, I seriously don't think half of currently owned guns would be registered if it were to become law. That's 150 million unregistered guns spread across at least 10% as many people. This would create many serious problems that you seem to want to just ignore. Again, that doesn't mean we shouldn't do anything about the problem... I just think your proposed solution is premature.
Also I should note this has nothing to do with me not wanting my guns taken away... I don't personally have any (nor am I a conservative). I'm just trying to discuss and think about the best things to do (or refrain from doing) for the country. Some of what you suggest I think is a good long-term goal but won't work immediately and would be counterproductive. I'm also not necessarily condoning people break the law and not registering their firearms should it become federal law... just saying why tremendous numbers of people wouldn't. Personally I have no problem registering my gun should I ever own one.
|
On December 20 2012 05:51 Zergofobic wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2012 01:46 Warheart wrote:
i think that civilians should not be able to buy or keep fully automatic weapons and that they should not be able to buy clips that can store more than 10 rounds; so i'm not against the right of people to keep firearms (i own some myself) but fore in house self defense you don't need an M-16. also the more people are allowed to carry guns, the higher the risk of getting shot is,that's simple statistics; only security and police should be allowed to carry weapons, i wouldn't trust a badly trained school teacher to have a loaded gun!
in Italy there is also a limit to the number of ammunitions that you can legally have in your possession and you must notify the police every time you buy new ones (except at firing ranges,where you must shoot every single bullet that you buy there) and before you get the license to own weapons you must pass both a physical and a practical test, and when you do get the license you must always make sure that they can't be taken by somebody without the knowledge of how to use them or without the permission to use them,and i think this is a reasonable way to go about guns as safely as possible. Look up the term democide. Governments are the biggest threats to human life. Trusting government to have all the guns, while you have none or little has always led to mass murder and genocide. In fact governments are more dangerous than the black plague. Also the police can't and won't protect you. They react to the crime scene, after the crime has been committed. They can't prevent crime, no one can and anyone who claims that you need to give up essential liberty for little temporary security is a tyrant, just like Hitler was when he disarmed his people and the Jews, just like Mao, just like soviet Russia, Pol Pot and the rest of them tyrants in the past century.
i just wrote that i am NOT against the right of people to own guns, but the only way to prevent crime is through police investigations, not by carrying a loaded gun! because even if you did all you can do is react at a situation, not prevent it!
|
On April 21 2013 23:19 Warheart wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2012 05:51 Zergofobic wrote:On December 20 2012 01:46 Warheart wrote:
i think that civilians should not be able to buy or keep fully automatic weapons and that they should not be able to buy clips that can store more than 10 rounds; so i'm not against the right of people to keep firearms (i own some myself) but fore in house self defense you don't need an M-16. also the more people are allowed to carry guns, the higher the risk of getting shot is,that's simple statistics; only security and police should be allowed to carry weapons, i wouldn't trust a badly trained school teacher to have a loaded gun!
in Italy there is also a limit to the number of ammunitions that you can legally have in your possession and you must notify the police every time you buy new ones (except at firing ranges,where you must shoot every single bullet that you buy there) and before you get the license to own weapons you must pass both a physical and a practical test, and when you do get the license you must always make sure that they can't be taken by somebody without the knowledge of how to use them or without the permission to use them,and i think this is a reasonable way to go about guns as safely as possible. Look up the term democide. Governments are the biggest threats to human life. Trusting government to have all the guns, while you have none or little has always led to mass murder and genocide. In fact governments are more dangerous than the black plague. Also the police can't and won't protect you. They react to the crime scene, after the crime has been committed. They can't prevent crime, no one can and anyone who claims that you need to give up essential liberty for little temporary security is a tyrant, just like Hitler was when he disarmed his people and the Jews, just like Mao, just like soviet Russia, Pol Pot and the rest of them tyrants in the past century. i just wrote that i am NOT against the right of people to own guns, but the only way to prevent crime is through police investigations, not by carrying a loaded gun! because even if you did all you can do is react at a situation, not prevent it!
So you're saying if a man attempts to rape a woman, and she shoots him dead before he can penetrate her, then the crime was not averted?
|
On April 19 2013 23:39 Stratos_speAr wrote:
The point is that having a national registry to assist in background checks has little to no influence on whether or not we will make a law that confiscates guns.
So if we decided to confiscate guns we would not have to register them prior to this happening? Just because A does not lead to B, doesn't mean we aren't any closer to B.
|
On April 22 2013 01:08 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2013 23:39 Stratos_speAr wrote:
The point is that having a national registry to assist in background checks has little to no influence on whether or not we will make a law that confiscates guns. So if we decided to confiscate guns we would not have to register them prior to this happening? Just because A does not lead to B, doesn't mean we aren't any closer to B.
An analogy,
If a woman gives you her number, there's a chance you might end up seeing her again, compared to seeing her off at the station which is ZERO.
In war, the first thing to always protect FIRST is intel. "Knowing is half the battle" - GI Joe. If a government goes against the people, will the gun registry be a benefit for these people? Or a benefit for the government?
The chance of a rogue government's ability to confiscate guns is made so much easier once they know where said guns are. Remember how they rounded up unlicensed pharmacists (despite decades of practice) to be jailed and fined when they passed health regulations? See YouTube. Do you really want that scenario? Help Big Brother round up all the "crazy/inferior/rebel scum/etc" aka people?
|
Lol. "Help big brother". Look, if the government wanted to "go against the people" then it would not matter whether they confiscated guns or not. All the rifles and handguns in the world stand no chance against modern tanks and bombers. I think fearing that a gun registry would endanger everyone's ability to successfully "resist teh governments" is sort of absurd.
|
On April 22 2013 02:35 Hattori_Hanzo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2013 01:08 kmillz wrote:On April 19 2013 23:39 Stratos_speAr wrote:
The point is that having a national registry to assist in background checks has little to no influence on whether or not we will make a law that confiscates guns. So if we decided to confiscate guns we would not have to register them prior to this happening? Just because A does not lead to B, doesn't mean we aren't any closer to B. An analogy, If a woman gives you her number, there's a chance you might end up seeing her again, compared to seeing her off at the station which is ZERO. In war, the first thing to always protect FIRST is intel. "Knowing is half the battle" - GI Joe. If a government goes against the people, will the gun registry be a benefit for these people? Or a benefit for the government? The chance of a rogue government's ability to confiscate guns is made so much easier once they know where said guns are. Remember how they rounded up unlicensed pharmacists (despite decades of practice) to be jailed and fined when they passed health regulations? See YouTube. Do you really want that scenario? Help Big Brother round up all the "crazy/inferior/rebel scum/etc" aka people?
Not only are you illustrating rather perfectly why the tired "slippery slope" argument makes for poor reasoning, you've also made it clear that you are willing to cede authority to Youtube videos, which is.........worrisome to say the least. Without youtube, can you substantiate this tale of persecuted unlicensed pharmacists and substantively link it to the gun control argument sans begging the question?
|
On April 22 2013 02:55 FallDownMarigold wrote:
Lol. "Help big brother". Look, if the government wanted to "go against the people" then it would not matter whether they confiscated guns or not. All the rifles and handguns in the world stand no chance against modern tanks and bombers. I think fearing that a gun registry would endanger everyone's ability to successfully "resist teh governments" is sort of absurd.
So either the government is with us or the government is attacking us with modern tanks and bombers? No room for a middle-ground possibility?
|
Not only that, it makes no sense to not enact a law just because a small but influential political group would refuse to obey the law. That pretty much is being held politically hostage. "I refuse to follow this law should you enact it because I don't agree with it ideologically, and I would cause a lot of trouble, so don't do anything about the subject!"
The problem is you keep saying things that aren't true and bashing off that.
Small but influential political group? The NRA, or gun owners? Gun owners are a large and influential political group. The NRA is influential because it can mobilize millions of people who are not NRA members to be single-issue voters. It is the largest political group in America after the two parties.
What you're describing is garden-variety civil disobedience, and trying to make it sound sinister. No difference between what you're describing and civil disobedience against the "Massive Resistance" strategy to desegregation in the South.
Really? There's a difference between civil disobedience and throwing around your incredibly imbalanced political influence to trash any efforts to fix an incredibly serious problem for a first world country just because you don't want your guns taken away. Civil disobedience is an act that forces the community to talk about the problem. What you are suggesting is the exact opposite; willfully breaking the law in the hopes that we abandon the discussion and the attempts at fixing the problem.
I agree, it's incredibly imbalanced when you're on the minority side of an issue. That's how you're supposed to feel. It's not an excuse for you to end-run around the majority to get your way, though.
Oh, just because you don't want your guns taken away. Let's belittle the concerns of people you need to persuade if you're ever going to make your minority a majority.
What he's suggesting is civil disobedience, what you're suggesting is that opposition to your personal preferences is opposition to some mythical consensus that exists in your mind.
4% of Americans, in a recent Gallup poll, think guns are the top priority issue facing the country that needs to be addressed. This is the same level as concern about education, immigration, and "moral/ethical/family values." Gun control is as much a priority as pleasing the Religious Right is to Americans. What does this show? That Americans who are for gun rights are far more passionate and better-organized than voters who are for more gun control. The pro-gun control voters don't have the capacity to punish politicians on election day (the fantasies of Nanny Bloomberg and the President notwithstanding), and pro-gun rights voters do. The most passionate are the ones who win on a given political issue. Just about every single time.
51% of Americans, in a recent ABC News poll, say they think having a gun in the house makes them safer. Against 29% who don't. In 2000 Gallup asked the same question, it was 50% who didn't, and 35% who did. A total reversal in ten years.
Certainly muddies up the waters when it comes to declaring that 90% of Americans are for more comprehensive background checks so YOU MUST DO THIS.
What you want is just to declare that there's a problem that must be fixed and people better get out of your way so it can be fixed. Doesn't matter if they think there's a problem or not, or what ideas they have to fix it. You've staked out your moral and practical superiority so it's time to stop talking and start dictating.
That usually doesn't work when you're a majority; when you're a minority, as gun-control proponents are, it not only doesn't work, it doubly reinforces your opponents by reminding them how little you care about them and reminding them that they are stronger than you. The first pisses them off and causes the second, because they look to friends and allies for reassurance. They find out they have more and stronger friends and allies than you, and now you're looking at no national gun control bill at all. Good job! Maybe hectoring and lecturing and beating your chest will give you better results next time.
You can't just ignore the fact that gun control has lost popularity - save for temporary spikes after horrific incidents of gun violence - in America as well as being on the losing side of decisive court decisions. Justice Scalia has hinted that he and the other 3 solid conservatives on the court are open to taking another gun-control case and striking down even more gun-control laws, which is a pretty big hint that they think they've got Anthony Kennedy on their side on guns.
Americans are, if not for more guns, against more gun control, and the number of voters for whom this is a single-issue situation - they will vote for or against a candidate purely because of that's candidate's position on guns - has risen. That's why the bills failed in the Senate. Because single-issue (guns) voters are a rising slice of the electorate in red states with Democratic senators.
|
On April 22 2013 02:55 FallDownMarigold wrote:
Lol. "Help big brother". Look, if the government wanted to "go against the people" then it would not matter whether they confiscated guns or not. All the rifles and handguns in the world stand no chance against modern tanks and bombers. I think fearing that a gun registry would endanger everyone's ability to successfully "resist teh governments" is sort of absurd.
Care to explain any modern insurgency then? How are the insurgents of Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc so successful when facing vastly superior tech?
At least think about it before you say things like that
|
On April 22 2013 00:55 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2013 23:19 Warheart wrote:On December 20 2012 05:51 Zergofobic wrote:On December 20 2012 01:46 Warheart wrote:
i think that civilians should not be able to buy or keep fully automatic weapons and that they should not be able to buy clips that can store more than 10 rounds; so i'm not against the right of people to keep firearms (i own some myself) but fore in house self defense you don't need an M-16. also the more people are allowed to carry guns, the higher the risk of getting shot is,that's simple statistics; only security and police should be allowed to carry weapons, i wouldn't trust a badly trained school teacher to have a loaded gun!
in Italy there is also a limit to the number of ammunitions that you can legally have in your possession and you must notify the police every time you buy new ones (except at firing ranges,where you must shoot every single bullet that you buy there) and before you get the license to own weapons you must pass both a physical and a practical test, and when you do get the license you must always make sure that they can't be taken by somebody without the knowledge of how to use them or without the permission to use them,and i think this is a reasonable way to go about guns as safely as possible. Look up the term democide. Governments are the biggest threats to human life. Trusting government to have all the guns, while you have none or little has always led to mass murder and genocide. In fact governments are more dangerous than the black plague. Also the police can't and won't protect you. They react to the crime scene, after the crime has been committed. They can't prevent crime, no one can and anyone who claims that you need to give up essential liberty for little temporary security is a tyrant, just like Hitler was when he disarmed his people and the Jews, just like Mao, just like soviet Russia, Pol Pot and the rest of them tyrants in the past century. i just wrote that i am NOT against the right of people to own guns, but the only way to prevent crime is through police investigations, not by carrying a loaded gun! because even if you did all you can do is react at a situation, not prevent it! So you're saying if a man attempts to rape a woman, and she shoots him dead before he can penetrate her, then the crime was not averted?
A rapist deserves punishment, but not death.
|
On April 22 2013 08:20 Larkin wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2013 00:55 kmillz wrote:On April 21 2013 23:19 Warheart wrote:On December 20 2012 05:51 Zergofobic wrote:On December 20 2012 01:46 Warheart wrote:
i think that civilians should not be able to buy or keep fully automatic weapons and that they should not be able to buy clips that can store more than 10 rounds; so i'm not against the right of people to keep firearms (i own some myself) but fore in house self defense you don't need an M-16. also the more people are allowed to carry guns, the higher the risk of getting shot is,that's simple statistics; only security and police should be allowed to carry weapons, i wouldn't trust a badly trained school teacher to have a loaded gun!
in Italy there is also a limit to the number of ammunitions that you can legally have in your possession and you must notify the police every time you buy new ones (except at firing ranges,where you must shoot every single bullet that you buy there) and before you get the license to own weapons you must pass both a physical and a practical test, and when you do get the license you must always make sure that they can't be taken by somebody without the knowledge of how to use them or without the permission to use them,and i think this is a reasonable way to go about guns as safely as possible. Look up the term democide. Governments are the biggest threats to human life. Trusting government to have all the guns, while you have none or little has always led to mass murder and genocide. In fact governments are more dangerous than the black plague. Also the police can't and won't protect you. They react to the crime scene, after the crime has been committed. They can't prevent crime, no one can and anyone who claims that you need to give up essential liberty for little temporary security is a tyrant, just like Hitler was when he disarmed his people and the Jews, just like Mao, just like soviet Russia, Pol Pot and the rest of them tyrants in the past century. i just wrote that i am NOT against the right of people to own guns, but the only way to prevent crime is through police investigations, not by carrying a loaded gun! because even if you did all you can do is react at a situation, not prevent it! So you're saying if a man attempts to rape a woman, and she shoots him dead before he can penetrate her, then the crime was not averted? A rapist deserves punishment, but not death.
So you're saying that we should remove self-defense laws? What if she was raped and then murdered? Why should we protect the criminals more than the victims?
edit: to clarify: Should she not be able to use necessary force to stop someone from raping her? What if she HAS to kill him to stop him? What if HE has a gun too? Or a knife? Should she only be allowed to be armed with a knife herself to defend against a man who is stronger and could have a knife or a gun?
edit 2: I completely 100% disagree with your sentiment that a rapist does not deserve death. Are you fucking kidding me? I think they are the most vile scum on this planet, right there next to child molesters and they can all be wiped off the face of the earth and deserve it.
|
On April 22 2013 08:20 Larkin wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2013 00:55 kmillz wrote:On April 21 2013 23:19 Warheart wrote:On December 20 2012 05:51 Zergofobic wrote:On December 20 2012 01:46 Warheart wrote:
i think that civilians should not be able to buy or keep fully automatic weapons and that they should not be able to buy clips that can store more than 10 rounds; so i'm not against the right of people to keep firearms (i own some myself) but fore in house self defense you don't need an M-16. also the more people are allowed to carry guns, the higher the risk of getting shot is,that's simple statistics; only security and police should be allowed to carry weapons, i wouldn't trust a badly trained school teacher to have a loaded gun!
in Italy there is also a limit to the number of ammunitions that you can legally have in your possession and you must notify the police every time you buy new ones (except at firing ranges,where you must shoot every single bullet that you buy there) and before you get the license to own weapons you must pass both a physical and a practical test, and when you do get the license you must always make sure that they can't be taken by somebody without the knowledge of how to use them or without the permission to use them,and i think this is a reasonable way to go about guns as safely as possible. Look up the term democide. Governments are the biggest threats to human life. Trusting government to have all the guns, while you have none or little has always led to mass murder and genocide. In fact governments are more dangerous than the black plague. Also the police can't and won't protect you. They react to the crime scene, after the crime has been committed. They can't prevent crime, no one can and anyone who claims that you need to give up essential liberty for little temporary security is a tyrant, just like Hitler was when he disarmed his people and the Jews, just like Mao, just like soviet Russia, Pol Pot and the rest of them tyrants in the past century. i just wrote that i am NOT against the right of people to own guns, but the only way to prevent crime is through police investigations, not by carrying a loaded gun! because even if you did all you can do is react at a situation, not prevent it! So you're saying if a man attempts to rape a woman, and she shoots him dead before he can penetrate her, then the crime was not averted? A rapist deserves punishment, but not death.
A rape victim deserves the right to protect her/himself, even if that means killing a rapist.
|
On April 22 2013 03:01 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2013 02:35 Hattori_Hanzo wrote:On April 22 2013 01:08 kmillz wrote:On April 19 2013 23:39 Stratos_speAr wrote:
The point is that having a national registry to assist in background checks has little to no influence on whether or not we will make a law that confiscates guns. So if we decided to confiscate guns we would not have to register them prior to this happening? Just because A does not lead to B, doesn't mean we aren't any closer to B. An analogy, If a woman gives you her number, there's a chance you might end up seeing her again, compared to seeing her off at the station which is ZERO. In war, the first thing to always protect FIRST is intel. "Knowing is half the battle" - GI Joe. If a government goes against the people, will the gun registry be a benefit for these people? Or a benefit for the government? The chance of a rogue government's ability to confiscate guns is made so much easier once they know where said guns are. Remember how they rounded up unlicensed pharmacists (despite decades of practice) to be jailed and fined when they passed health regulations? See YouTube. Do you really want that scenario? Help Big Brother round up all the "crazy/inferior/rebel scum/etc" aka people? Not only are you illustrating rather perfectly why the tired "slippery slope" argument makes for poor reasoning, you've also made it clear that you are willing to cede authority to Youtube videos, which is.........worrisome to say the least. Without youtube, can you substantiate this tale of persecuted unlicensed pharmacists and substantively link it to the gun control argument sans begging the question?
Then do your own research. If you cannot even bother to even view YouTube videos that concerned citizens produced on their own budget, time and energy explaining the associations, paper trails and links to the systematic erosion of American freedom, there's really no point talking further.
You are already intellectually covering your ears going "LALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU IT NEVER HAPPENED WILL NEVER HAPPEN AND YOU ARE WRONG WRONG WRONG" ad nausem.
There's therefore no point even going further since you cannot even be bothered to look into the assault on US freedoms with the merger of pharmacy and state. It is a neglected topic compared to the established research of new world orber.
|
On April 22 2013 09:20 Hattori_Hanzo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2013 03:01 farvacola wrote:On April 22 2013 02:35 Hattori_Hanzo wrote:On April 22 2013 01:08 kmillz wrote:On April 19 2013 23:39 Stratos_speAr wrote:
The point is that having a national registry to assist in background checks has little to no influence on whether or not we will make a law that confiscates guns. So if we decided to confiscate guns we would not have to register them prior to this happening? Just because A does not lead to B, doesn't mean we aren't any closer to B. An analogy, If a woman gives you her number, there's a chance you might end up seeing her again, compared to seeing her off at the station which is ZERO. In war, the first thing to always protect FIRST is intel. "Knowing is half the battle" - GI Joe. If a government goes against the people, will the gun registry be a benefit for these people? Or a benefit for the government? The chance of a rogue government's ability to confiscate guns is made so much easier once they know where said guns are. Remember how they rounded up unlicensed pharmacists (despite decades of practice) to be jailed and fined when they passed health regulations? See YouTube. Do you really want that scenario? Help Big Brother round up all the "crazy/inferior/rebel scum/etc" aka people? Not only are you illustrating rather perfectly why the tired "slippery slope" argument makes for poor reasoning, you've also made it clear that you are willing to cede authority to Youtube videos, which is.........worrisome to say the least. Without youtube, can you substantiate this tale of persecuted unlicensed pharmacists and substantively link it to the gun control argument sans begging the question? Then do your own research. If you cannot even bother to even view YouTube videos that concerned citizens produced on their own budget, time and energy explaining the associations, paper trails and links to the systematic erosion of American freedom, there's really no point talking further. You are already intellectually covering your ears going "LALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU IT NEVER HAPPENED WILL NEVER HAPPEN AND YOU ARE WRONG WRONG WRONG" ad nausem. There's therefore no point even going further since you cannot even be bothered to look into the assault on US freedoms with the merger of pharmacy and state. It is a neglected topic compared to the established research of new world orber.
Ok, so you don't have anything other than youtube videos to back up your statements, I was only making sure that my initial judgement was germane. The government and the pharmaceutical industry do indeed have a troubling relationship, particularly due to to lobbying and the appointment of suspect individuals to positions of import, but again, linking this to gun control with something more substantial than populist drivel like "assault on US freedoms" seems unlikely given your previous responses, and is, unfortunately, what you need to do to justify all this rabble rousing.
|
On April 22 2013 09:31 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2013 09:20 Hattori_Hanzo wrote:On April 22 2013 03:01 farvacola wrote:On April 22 2013 02:35 Hattori_Hanzo wrote:On April 22 2013 01:08 kmillz wrote:On April 19 2013 23:39 Stratos_speAr wrote:
The point is that having a national registry to assist in background checks has little to no influence on whether or not we will make a law that confiscates guns. So if we decided to confiscate guns we would not have to register them prior to this happening? Just because A does not lead to B, doesn't mean we aren't any closer to B. An analogy, If a woman gives you her number, there's a chance you might end up seeing her again, compared to seeing her off at the station which is ZERO. In war, the first thing to always protect FIRST is intel. "Knowing is half the battle" - GI Joe. If a government goes against the people, will the gun registry be a benefit for these people? Or a benefit for the government? The chance of a rogue government's ability to confiscate guns is made so much easier once they know where said guns are. Remember how they rounded up unlicensed pharmacists (despite decades of practice) to be jailed and fined when they passed health regulations? See YouTube. Do you really want that scenario? Help Big Brother round up all the "crazy/inferior/rebel scum/etc" aka people? Not only are you illustrating rather perfectly why the tired "slippery slope" argument makes for poor reasoning, you've also made it clear that you are willing to cede authority to Youtube videos, which is.........worrisome to say the least. Without youtube, can you substantiate this tale of persecuted unlicensed pharmacists and substantively link it to the gun control argument sans begging the question? Then do your own research. If you cannot even bother to even view YouTube videos that concerned citizens produced on their own budget, time and energy explaining the associations, paper trails and links to the systematic erosion of American freedom, there's really no point talking further. You are already intellectually covering your ears going "LALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU IT NEVER HAPPENED WILL NEVER HAPPEN AND YOU ARE WRONG WRONG WRONG" ad nausem. There's therefore no point even going further since you cannot even be bothered to look into the assault on US freedoms with the merger of pharmacy and state. It is a neglected topic compared to the established research of new world orber. Ok, so you don't have anything other than youtube videos to back up your statements, I was only making sure that my initial judgement was germane. The government and the pharmaceutical industry do indeed have a troubling relationship, particularly due to to lobbying and the appointment of suspect individuals to positions of import, but again, linking this to gun control with something more substantial than populist drivel like "assault on US freedoms" seems unlikely given your previous responses, and is, unfortunately, what you need to do to justify all this rabble rousing.
If it happened to the pharmaceutical industry, why wouldn't it happen to guns too? Or rather why do you think it's any different?
|
Northern Ireland25082 Posts
Why is a certain sub-section of American society so, so terrified about government control of their lives, but so tacitly accepting of the same kind of influence and power of corporate America? Is it purely a principle thing, ignorance of the latter or what?
Genuine question, not a flame or an attempt to post in an obnoxious 'I am European we know better' manner.
|
On April 22 2013 09:39 Wombat_NI wrote:
Why is a certain sub-section of American society so, so terrified about government control of their lives, but so tacitly accepting of the same kind of influence and power of corporate America? Is it purely a principle thing, ignorance of the latter or what?
Genuine question, not a flame or an attempt to post in an obnoxious 'I am European we know better' manner.
It isn't a fear but rather an expectation of our government. The government is for the people, not the other way around, and we like to keep our governments power limited only to the needs of the people. At least that's how I view it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
