|
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 December 12 2019 08:34 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2019 07:45 Erasme wrote:On December 12 2019 07:39 Danglars wrote:On December 12 2019 07:24 Wombat_NI wrote:
I don’t see why Danglars can’t be sympathetic and hold the views he holds.
I’m personally against real punitive law enforcement, an overarching surveillance state when it comes to criminality etc.
If a terrorist incident that occurs that could have been prevented with the above being in place, I can still have sympathy for the victims while still feeling it’s the price to pay for certain other things I value.
I can’t say we hold the exact same views, but something of parallel (maybe that’s the right word?). There’s several liberties I now hold, that I’d eventually be persuaded to fight for and die for if a future tyrannical state took them away. The rich tradition dates further back beyond the Revolution, where something as scoffed at like “taxation” (or “stuff”) led to so many lives lost in gun violence “continued safety of innocents” “precious human life.” I still think the noble preservation of gun rights continue to guard against the need for such a revolution again. The second amendment is not the red-headed stepchild of the civil rights guaranteed to me in the bill of rights, but indeed stands as a prophylactic step against unimaginable loss of life in the future. I might even dare say, loss of human rights I hold very dear alongside life. But when you reduce it all to valuing stuff over life, you indulge a false dichotomy. When you deny the other side true sympathy, real expressions of condolences, and actually thinking deaths from violence is a problem today, you undermine any basis of arguing from shared humanity you can hope to make. And I won’t blame a single person for checking out of the legislative battle when the opening salvo is “fuck your thoughts and prayers hypocrite, just kidding” ... as the most recent mass shooting started off with. Correct me if i'm wrong You want to keep current gun laws in case taxes ever rises too much or in case of some apocalyptic scenario ? I made an edit to make my point a little more clear in that post. The case of the American revolution serves to put the lie to claims that lives should always trump stuff. They fought and died for rights about their stuff (taxation), and that was the birth of this great country. I agree with the argument presented in the Declaration of Independence as it relates to rights about stuff, and of their decision to commit to lives lost from gun violence to make an effect of it. Simultaneously, I think an armed citizenry is the ultimate protection against a government turning into a tyranny—of the majority against a minority, of an elite class against the rights of the less well connected, or of any group against the rights enshrined in the constitution. It’s a deterrent effect for aspiring political groups that might hope to get frisky with the first amendment, or the fourth amendment. The second amendment is a deterrent and a means of last resort, and things like separation of powers, the electoral college, and federalism are good protections up to that final stage. You won’t be able to disarm people to force compliance with a series of unjust laws trampling on civil rights, it would get bloody for both sides. This isn’t in relation to taxation specifically; that’s a historical example of my other point in life vs stuff.
I guess you would be ok with antiguns people starting to shoot at republicans
I'll give you my thoughts and prayers if that ever happen
|
Northern Ireland26460 Posts
On December 13 2019 08:32 Erasme wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2019 08:34 Danglars wrote:On December 12 2019 07:45 Erasme wrote:On December 12 2019 07:39 Danglars wrote:On December 12 2019 07:24 Wombat_NI wrote:
I don’t see why Danglars can’t be sympathetic and hold the views he holds.
I’m personally against real punitive law enforcement, an overarching surveillance state when it comes to criminality etc.
If a terrorist incident that occurs that could have been prevented with the above being in place, I can still have sympathy for the victims while still feeling it’s the price to pay for certain other things I value.
I can’t say we hold the exact same views, but something of parallel (maybe that’s the right word?). There’s several liberties I now hold, that I’d eventually be persuaded to fight for and die for if a future tyrannical state took them away. The rich tradition dates further back beyond the Revolution, where something as scoffed at like “taxation” (or “stuff”) led to so many lives lost in gun violence “continued safety of innocents” “precious human life.” I still think the noble preservation of gun rights continue to guard against the need for such a revolution again. The second amendment is not the red-headed stepchild of the civil rights guaranteed to me in the bill of rights, but indeed stands as a prophylactic step against unimaginable loss of life in the future. I might even dare say, loss of human rights I hold very dear alongside life. But when you reduce it all to valuing stuff over life, you indulge a false dichotomy. When you deny the other side true sympathy, real expressions of condolences, and actually thinking deaths from violence is a problem today, you undermine any basis of arguing from shared humanity you can hope to make. And I won’t blame a single person for checking out of the legislative battle when the opening salvo is “fuck your thoughts and prayers hypocrite, just kidding” ... as the most recent mass shooting started off with. Correct me if i'm wrong You want to keep current gun laws in case taxes ever rises too much or in case of some apocalyptic scenario ? I made an edit to make my point a little more clear in that post. The case of the American revolution serves to put the lie to claims that lives should always trump stuff. They fought and died for rights about their stuff (taxation), and that was the birth of this great country. I agree with the argument presented in the Declaration of Independence as it relates to rights about stuff, and of their decision to commit to lives lost from gun violence to make an effect of it. Simultaneously, I think an armed citizenry is the ultimate protection against a government turning into a tyranny—of the majority against a minority, of an elite class against the rights of the less well connected, or of any group against the rights enshrined in the constitution. It’s a deterrent effect for aspiring political groups that might hope to get frisky with the first amendment, or the fourth amendment. The second amendment is a deterrent and a means of last resort, and things like separation of powers, the electoral college, and federalism are good protections up to that final stage. You won’t be able to disarm people to force compliance with a series of unjust laws trampling on civil rights, it would get bloody for both sides. This isn’t in relation to taxation specifically; that’s a historical example of my other point in life vs stuff. I guess you would be ok with antiguns people starting to shoot at republicans I'll give you my thoughts and prayers if that ever happen
Why would you go to that extreme here?
Perhaps it’s some flaw in my programming but I can see the pro-gun and pro-life lobbies as having certain views that don’t come from some nefarious evil place. I may disagree but the views don’t come from some deep pit of insidiousness.
I think it’s frankly disgusting to insinuate that Danglars wants to be able to shoot people he has political disagreements with, it’s not at all consistent with his past posting whatsoever.
|
On December 13 2019 08:32 Erasme wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2019 08:34 Danglars wrote:On December 12 2019 07:45 Erasme wrote:On December 12 2019 07:39 Danglars wrote:On December 12 2019 07:24 Wombat_NI wrote:
I don’t see why Danglars can’t be sympathetic and hold the views he holds.
I’m personally against real punitive law enforcement, an overarching surveillance state when it comes to criminality etc.
If a terrorist incident that occurs that could have been prevented with the above being in place, I can still have sympathy for the victims while still feeling it’s the price to pay for certain other things I value.
I can’t say we hold the exact same views, but something of parallel (maybe that’s the right word?). There’s several liberties I now hold, that I’d eventually be persuaded to fight for and die for if a future tyrannical state took them away. The rich tradition dates further back beyond the Revolution, where something as scoffed at like “taxation” (or “stuff”) led to so many lives lost in gun violence “continued safety of innocents” “precious human life.” I still think the noble preservation of gun rights continue to guard against the need for such a revolution again. The second amendment is not the red-headed stepchild of the civil rights guaranteed to me in the bill of rights, but indeed stands as a prophylactic step against unimaginable loss of life in the future. I might even dare say, loss of human rights I hold very dear alongside life. But when you reduce it all to valuing stuff over life, you indulge a false dichotomy. When you deny the other side true sympathy, real expressions of condolences, and actually thinking deaths from violence is a problem today, you undermine any basis of arguing from shared humanity you can hope to make. And I won’t blame a single person for checking out of the legislative battle when the opening salvo is “fuck your thoughts and prayers hypocrite, just kidding” ... as the most recent mass shooting started off with. Correct me if i'm wrong You want to keep current gun laws in case taxes ever rises too much or in case of some apocalyptic scenario ? I made an edit to make my point a little more clear in that post. The case of the American revolution serves to put the lie to claims that lives should always trump stuff. They fought and died for rights about their stuff (taxation), and that was the birth of this great country. I agree with the argument presented in the Declaration of Independence as it relates to rights about stuff, and of their decision to commit to lives lost from gun violence to make an effect of it. Simultaneously, I think an armed citizenry is the ultimate protection against a government turning into a tyranny—of the majority against a minority, of an elite class against the rights of the less well connected, or of any group against the rights enshrined in the constitution. It’s a deterrent effect for aspiring political groups that might hope to get frisky with the first amendment, or the fourth amendment. The second amendment is a deterrent and a means of last resort, and things like separation of powers, the electoral college, and federalism are good protections up to that final stage. You won’t be able to disarm people to force compliance with a series of unjust laws trampling on civil rights, it would get bloody for both sides. This isn’t in relation to taxation specifically; that’s a historical example of my other point in life vs stuff. I guess you would be ok with antiguns people starting to shoot at republicans I'll give you my thoughts and prayers if that ever happen
It's funny that the flurry of posts reached a peak with someone accusing me of having no problem with violent gun deaths, and a day later it's back to being ok with "antiguns people starting to shoot at republicans."
Don't think too long for why gun rights people distrust gun control people. Don't wonder too much about a lack of policy debate against assholes that think dead kids/victims of mass shootings/civil war don't matter to you.
|
|
|
As far as propositions, anyone here can argue with a few important ones raised
- It is fair to jeer at thoughts and prayers, if consequent actions are felt insufficient by the observer
- Phrases like "they ARE the enemy ... They have no problem with the fact that a lot of people die to gun every year They have no problem with the fact that a smaller a lot of people die randomly in mass shootings every year They have no problem with the fact that there is a mass shooting pretty much every day" are fundamentally dehumanizing and ought to be below the standards of discourse
- No person in this debate should be forced to defend their own human compassion before approaching policy
- The taunts on displays of sympathy is a major factor in the current inaction regarding gun control
I have no problems ignoring people that can't bring their discourse up to any sensible standard. But I do think my respect for them forces me to detail exactly why I won't invest time in history, statistics, laws, issues, before ultimately ignoring their posts. I can't assume anyone will connect the insults from the night before, into why I'm not engaging on self defense within the home, or open carry when in the community.
The second, obvious problem, is when I talk to members of my own ideological side, this is the first or second thing that comes up. Gun control proponents don't care about lawful gun ownership, they're just stuck in a perpetual emotional response of "do something, anything" after tragedy. Gun control proponents have identified the enemy, and they're committed to defeating that enemy, and they have all their baggage of why hatred of the enemy is justified, so why negotiate away our few remaining rights when it will never be enough for them?
All TeamLiquid participants here angry at the state of gun control legislation in the country DESERVE TO KNOW that this is a big factor in the debate. I don't care how many people spout off about unfair generalizations ... there's enough of that uncouth flavor in the debate to drown out any sensible people on the margins. And the posture of defeating an enemy you've given up on persuading calcifies the other side, who will do battle at the polling booth instead of the debate forum until one or another gains a supermajority somewhere.
|
On December 13 2019 11:07 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2019 08:32 Erasme wrote:On December 12 2019 08:34 Danglars wrote:On December 12 2019 07:45 Erasme wrote:On December 12 2019 07:39 Danglars wrote:On December 12 2019 07:24 Wombat_NI wrote:
I don’t see why Danglars can’t be sympathetic and hold the views he holds.
I’m personally against real punitive law enforcement, an overarching surveillance state when it comes to criminality etc.
If a terrorist incident that occurs that could have been prevented with the above being in place, I can still have sympathy for the victims while still feeling it’s the price to pay for certain other things I value.
I can’t say we hold the exact same views, but something of parallel (maybe that’s the right word?). There’s several liberties I now hold, that I’d eventually be persuaded to fight for and die for if a future tyrannical state took them away. The rich tradition dates further back beyond the Revolution, where something as scoffed at like “taxation” (or “stuff”) led to so many lives lost in gun violence “continued safety of innocents” “precious human life.” I still think the noble preservation of gun rights continue to guard against the need for such a revolution again. The second amendment is not the red-headed stepchild of the civil rights guaranteed to me in the bill of rights, but indeed stands as a prophylactic step against unimaginable loss of life in the future. I might even dare say, loss of human rights I hold very dear alongside life. But when you reduce it all to valuing stuff over life, you indulge a false dichotomy. When you deny the other side true sympathy, real expressions of condolences, and actually thinking deaths from violence is a problem today, you undermine any basis of arguing from shared humanity you can hope to make. And I won’t blame a single person for checking out of the legislative battle when the opening salvo is “fuck your thoughts and prayers hypocrite, just kidding” ... as the most recent mass shooting started off with. Correct me if i'm wrong You want to keep current gun laws in case taxes ever rises too much or in case of some apocalyptic scenario ? I made an edit to make my point a little more clear in that post. The case of the American revolution serves to put the lie to claims that lives should always trump stuff. They fought and died for rights about their stuff (taxation), and that was the birth of this great country. I agree with the argument presented in the Declaration of Independence as it relates to rights about stuff, and of their decision to commit to lives lost from gun violence to make an effect of it. Simultaneously, I think an armed citizenry is the ultimate protection against a government turning into a tyranny—of the majority against a minority, of an elite class against the rights of the less well connected, or of any group against the rights enshrined in the constitution. It’s a deterrent effect for aspiring political groups that might hope to get frisky with the first amendment, or the fourth amendment. The second amendment is a deterrent and a means of last resort, and things like separation of powers, the electoral college, and federalism are good protections up to that final stage. You won’t be able to disarm people to force compliance with a series of unjust laws trampling on civil rights, it would get bloody for both sides. This isn’t in relation to taxation specifically; that’s a historical example of my other point in life vs stuff. I guess you would be ok with antiguns people starting to shoot at republicans I'll give you my thoughts and prayers if that ever happen It's funny that the flurry of posts reached a peak with someone accusing me of having no problem with violent gun deaths, and a day later it's back to being ok with "antiguns people starting to shoot at republicans." Don't think too long for why gun rights people distrust gun control people. Don't wonder too much about a lack of policy debate against assholes that think dead kids/victims of mass shootings/civil war don't matter to you.
Why ? You believe the minority should be able to defend itself against the tyranny of the majority. Well currently the majority believes current gun laws are good enough while people die. Following your own logic, the minority can and needs to act violently to prevent more deaths in the future.
|
On December 13 2019 21:55 Erasme wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2019 11:07 Danglars wrote:On December 13 2019 08:32 Erasme wrote:On December 12 2019 08:34 Danglars wrote:On December 12 2019 07:45 Erasme wrote:On December 12 2019 07:39 Danglars wrote:On December 12 2019 07:24 Wombat_NI wrote:
I don’t see why Danglars can’t be sympathetic and hold the views he holds.
I’m personally against real punitive law enforcement, an overarching surveillance state when it comes to criminality etc.
If a terrorist incident that occurs that could have been prevented with the above being in place, I can still have sympathy for the victims while still feeling it’s the price to pay for certain other things I value.
I can’t say we hold the exact same views, but something of parallel (maybe that’s the right word?). There’s several liberties I now hold, that I’d eventually be persuaded to fight for and die for if a future tyrannical state took them away. The rich tradition dates further back beyond the Revolution, where something as scoffed at like “taxation” (or “stuff”) led to so many lives lost in gun violence “continued safety of innocents” “precious human life.” I still think the noble preservation of gun rights continue to guard against the need for such a revolution again. The second amendment is not the red-headed stepchild of the civil rights guaranteed to me in the bill of rights, but indeed stands as a prophylactic step against unimaginable loss of life in the future. I might even dare say, loss of human rights I hold very dear alongside life. But when you reduce it all to valuing stuff over life, you indulge a false dichotomy. When you deny the other side true sympathy, real expressions of condolences, and actually thinking deaths from violence is a problem today, you undermine any basis of arguing from shared humanity you can hope to make. And I won’t blame a single person for checking out of the legislative battle when the opening salvo is “fuck your thoughts and prayers hypocrite, just kidding” ... as the most recent mass shooting started off with. Correct me if i'm wrong You want to keep current gun laws in case taxes ever rises too much or in case of some apocalyptic scenario ? I made an edit to make my point a little more clear in that post. The case of the American revolution serves to put the lie to claims that lives should always trump stuff. They fought and died for rights about their stuff (taxation), and that was the birth of this great country. I agree with the argument presented in the Declaration of Independence as it relates to rights about stuff, and of their decision to commit to lives lost from gun violence to make an effect of it. Simultaneously, I think an armed citizenry is the ultimate protection against a government turning into a tyranny—of the majority against a minority, of an elite class against the rights of the less well connected, or of any group against the rights enshrined in the constitution. It’s a deterrent effect for aspiring political groups that might hope to get frisky with the first amendment, or the fourth amendment. The second amendment is a deterrent and a means of last resort, and things like separation of powers, the electoral college, and federalism are good protections up to that final stage. You won’t be able to disarm people to force compliance with a series of unjust laws trampling on civil rights, it would get bloody for both sides. This isn’t in relation to taxation specifically; that’s a historical example of my other point in life vs stuff. I guess you would be ok with antiguns people starting to shoot at republicans I'll give you my thoughts and prayers if that ever happen It's funny that the flurry of posts reached a peak with someone accusing me of having no problem with violent gun deaths, and a day later it's back to being ok with "antiguns people starting to shoot at republicans." Don't think too long for why gun rights people distrust gun control people. Don't wonder too much about a lack of policy debate against assholes that think dead kids/victims of mass shootings/civil war don't matter to you. Why ? You believe the minority should be able to defend itself against the tyranny of the majority. Well currently the majority believes current gun laws are good enough while people die. Following your own logic, the minority can and needs to act violently.
I think there’s a certain disconnect between the polling and the representatives on this topic, so I wouldn’t be so sure about the sides on this. Certain states have passed more laws in the wake of the Florida school shooting, particularly.
Secondarily, the big civil rights enshrined in the bill of rights are a better backdrop for what is and isn’t tyranny. Is the government jailing you for your expressed political opinion, despite the first amendment? Are they enforcing mandatory gun buybacks with an activist court’s permission, despite the second amendment? Are you being denied trial, or put in double jeopardy, or not being told what you’re accused of, in spite of your sixth amendment? That’s the higher standard of tyrannies that I’m using the word to describe.
Not some person feeling like the lack of hate speech laws amounts to a tyranny, or a (current) political minority unable to pass their favored gun laws before the next election. That’s far too close to political hyperbole and politicking than an actual string of abuses of your rights. Your right to force others to give up their guns, no. And my views are way more in line with building trust that gun laws will be gauged by their impact on criminal activity, and repealed should there be no impact as in the past, and respecting the second amendment rights of all Americans. I’ve already laid out two or three legislative and enforcement related changes I’d favor relating to gun control.
|
How curious, when has those who argue against gun control have ever stood against tyranny? Those who beleive in the right to bear arms did not fight against a tyranical government to end slavery. In fact they appeared to fight for tyranny. They did no fight to end segregation. They did not fight to stop lynchings. They did not fight against an unpopular conscription in a private war in the interest of corporations. They do not fight to end gerrymandering or targetted anti voting mechanism. They did not fight against the overreach of mass surveillance. They do not fight to prevent the inhumane conditions of the ICE. They do not fight against tyranny at all. They support it. They they would be ineffective if they tried to do so against the wishes of the majority of the populace. The constitution is not an infallible document, it is made by humans.
|
|
|
As a gun owner that supports increased gun regulations I can tell you guys that while I agree that we need regulation, the way you guys talk about the issues is turning allies to enemies.
|
On December 13 2019 23:58 JimmiC wrote:
The reality is what the second amendment ACTUALLY says is "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." But the people trying to sell guns and ammo only ever talk about the end of it. Even way back when they wrote this they understood the importance of regulation, and actually these militia's were initially used to quell rebellions not start them.
The idea here is that you need people to be good at guns in order to be able to form a militia if that's ever needed. The right of the people to keep guns shouldn't be infringed because if it is, it will become impossible to form a well regulated militia when that's necessary.
|
|
|
I must have missed something as what GH just wrote makes no sense.
|
On December 14 2019 00:24 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
I must have missed something as what GH just wrote makes no sense.
The way the pro-regulation people talk about gun issues here turns allies into enemies.
That clear?
|
|
|
On December 14 2019 00:29 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2019 00:24 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
I must have missed something as what GH just wrote makes no sense. The way the pro-regulation people talk about gun issues here turns allies into enemies. That clear?
That doesn't seem related to anything in particular. JimmiC for instance has clarified that he thinks you are talking about yourself.
That clear?
|
On December 14 2019 00:30 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2019 00:29 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 14 2019 00:24 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
I must have missed something as what GH just wrote makes no sense. That the way the pro-regulation people talk about gun issues here turns allies into enemies. That clear? Oh darn I thought you were making a joke based on how you post! I guess unintended comedy is really the best. People are posting that way to Danglars because of his long history, I'm sure most people would post to others differently.
Danglars isn't the only person reading the thread, they aren't about him exclusively as a person, but a variety of ideas/positions.
Folks are making enemies out of allies, the excuse is pretty irrelevant, just thought they should know and maybe try a different approach.
|
|
|
On December 14 2019 00:20 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2019 00:17 Nebuchad wrote:On December 13 2019 23:58 JimmiC wrote:
The reality is what the second amendment ACTUALLY says is "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." But the people trying to sell guns and ammo only ever talk about the end of it. Even way back when they wrote this they understood the importance of regulation, and actually these militia's were initially used to quell rebellions not start them. The idea here is that you need people to be good at guns in order to be able to form a militia if that's ever needed. The right of the people to keep guns shouldn't be infringed because if it is, it will become impossible to form a well regulated militia when that's necessary. Nope, that is not how they wrote it or why they intended it. They needed to have people ready to stop uprisings when they happened over things like taxes, or in the event if say the British came. So they had to be registered and organized to be called upon when needed. You are just spouting the NRA propaganda, you should look into the history.
Aren't we saying the same thing here? I'm not following.
|
Sure, Danglars isn't the only one reading the thread, but he's the one who transformed the discussion into how people who try to express genuine sympathy are being attacked. That was never the point. This is a discussion that's gone in circles a million times. Genuine or no, these expressions of sympathy always seem to accompany no action, suggesting that they either don't care, or they do care, but they view it as an unavoidable price to pay for their rights. Even if you take the latter, there's still the assumption that nothing can be done about our current predicament, which simply isn't true. Getting caught in the weeds about whether we're catering enough to people's expressions of sympathy only ensures that nothing more gets accomplished. Which I'm sure for Danglars is part of the point.
The discussion should be about whether things can be done(which... yes) and what, but instead we're caught on this other discussion stemming from a perceived attack, which of course is leading nowhere.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
