Gentoo Forums
Gentoo Forums
Gentoo Forums
Quick Search: in
My First Rifle
View unanswered posts
View posts from last 24 hours

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next  
Reply to topic    Gentoo Forums Forum Index Off the Wall
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
juniper
l33t
l33t


Joined: 22 Oct 2004
Posts: 757
Location: EU

PostPosted: Mon May 06, 2013 9:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Old School wrote:
juniper wrote:
would it be worth it if the answer was one innocent person?


We are not talking ending birth control abortions, we are talking the bill of rights.


what precisely is against the bill of rights here?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
juniper
l33t
l33t


Joined: 22 Oct 2004
Posts: 757
Location: EU

PostPosted: Mon May 06, 2013 9:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

flysideways wrote:
juniper wrote:
but can't you throw us a bone? What do you propose? anything that's not from the idiot book of arming everyone.

Nidal Hasan was a spree shooter. Please tell me how you think this could have been avoided or mitigated. All of the recent spree shooters have had exposure to and interactions with people that saw them as a threat at some level, yet there were no interventions that prevented the acts. Maybe we should just say "WTF?" when people are demonstrating threatening behavior patterns. Situational awareness and vigilance are much more labor intensive than passing some feel good legislation.

Later we can talk about the career criminals let back out into our neighborhoods who have a proven record of using weapons to kill and intimidate in the regular course of their pursuit of a livelihood.

Then we can talk about creds.

Then crimes of passion.

And finally suicides.

Gun control arguments that are divorced from any connotation of causality and responsibility will have problems with people who strive to exercise personal responsibility and expect the same of others. A funny aside, there are federal rules that require a person to be of good moral character in order to be allowed to do certain things. What the hell is that all about?

Elsewhere in the news. Newborns swirling about in the toilet bowl. Maybe you could save "just" one. Or, is it wrong for the police to do sobriety checks at the exits to establishment (restaurant, bar or convenience store) parking lots? Or maybe drug tests for drivers licenses? Remember the threshold is saving "just one".


waiting periods and broad background checks. what do that violate?

toilets have a non-violent function.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Muso
l33t
l33t


Joined: 22 Oct 2002
Posts: 656
Location: The Holy city of Honolulu

PostPosted: Mon May 06, 2013 9:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

juniper wrote:
but can't you throw us a bone?


No. It's my rights you are talking about. Why don't you "throw us a bone" and offer a solution that doesn't violate our rights.

I'll make it easy for you. "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Find a solution where you aren't using the force of government to violate that.


Also,
juniper wrote:
would it be worth it if the answer was one innocent person?


So you must obviously be against abortion. As that is the #1 killer of black children in the US.
_________________
http://howdovaccinescauseautism.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
juniper
l33t
l33t


Joined: 22 Oct 2004
Posts: 757
Location: EU

PostPosted: Mon May 06, 2013 10:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Muso wrote:
juniper wrote:
but can't you throw us a bone?


No. It's my rights you are talking about. Why don't you "throw us a bone" and offer a solution that doesn't violate our rights.

I'll make it easy for you. "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Find a solution where you aren't using the force of government to violate that.


restrict firearms, background checks. the right to bear arms is not infringed.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
flysideways
Apprentice
Apprentice


Joined: 29 Jan 2005
Posts: 151

PostPosted: Mon May 06, 2013 1:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

juniper wrote:
flysideways wrote:
juniper wrote:
but can't you throw us a bone? What do you propose? anything that's not from the idiot book of arming everyone.

Nidal Hasan was a spree shooter. Please tell me how you think this could have been avoided or mitigated. All of the recent spree shooters have had exposure to and interactions with people that saw them as a threat at some level, yet there were no interventions that prevented the acts. Maybe we should just say "WTF?" when people are demonstrating threatening behavior patterns. Situational awareness and vigilance are much more labor intensive than passing some feel good legislation.

Later we can talk about the career criminals let back out into our neighborhoods who have a proven record of using weapons to kill and intimidate in the regular course of their pursuit of a livelihood.

Then we can talk about creds.

Then crimes of passion.

And finally suicides.

Gun control arguments that are divorced from any connotation of causality and responsibility will have problems with people who strive to exercise personal responsibility and expect the same of others. A funny aside, there are federal rules that require a person to be of good moral character in order to be allowed to do certain things. What the hell is that all about?

Elsewhere in the news. Newborns swirling about in the toilet bowl. Maybe you could save "just" one. Or, is it wrong for the police to do sobriety checks at the exits to establishment (restaurant, bar or convenience store) parking lots? Or maybe drug tests for drivers licenses? Remember the threshold is saving "just one".


waiting periods and broad background checks. what do that violate?

toilets have a non-violent function.


But, Nidal Hasan was given and passed a background check. So was Jared Loughner. Oops, so did Holmes.

They did not, like career criminals, buy a stolen gun from the back of a van or trunk of a car. Hasan's radicalization was witnessed and not acted upon. Loughner scared his school so badly they sent their police to tell him not to return and his parents were also reacting to his problems in a not productive manner. It seems that Holmes too was demonstrating a threatening behavior pattern to the school shrink, yet ... Remember the Millennium bombing that wasn't because a CBP Official was paying attention and wasn't head up there and locked? The bomber to be was from Canada and acting "hinky". There was need of further action in all of these cases that went unheeded. What was needed was very case specific action not a broad all encompassing law passed by some politician that gives two shits about the real problem. The same people agitating for these laws are even more actively making excuses for the people who would do us harm.

If you really are so creatively challenged as to be incapable of imagining a use for a firearm that does not include doing violence to another person I fear we are lost here.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ManDay
Apprentice
Apprentice


Joined: 22 Jan 2008
Posts: 209

PostPosted: Tue May 07, 2013 1:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

It always amazes me how even somewhat-intelligent US citizen/people fall into absolute idiocy as soon as the "2nd amendment" is put to question...

BoneCracker.

There was a report about gun laws and Obama's attempt to toughen regulations just a few days ago. Appropriately titled A country shoots herself.



There was that hilarious episode in that report where the parents and relatives to the children shot to death at the Sandy Hook massacre gathered, together with lobbyists and NRA representatives, for a debate.

The father of one of the killed children sat there, in front of the microphone, desperate to the point where he was hardly able to speak. The only question he would ask is that:

Can anyone give me a reason for why any of you would need a high-capacity magazine?

No answer, not from the NRA representatives nor from the present manufacturers.

And then, from the back of the room, came the best answer some guy could come up with:

The second amendment!

BoneCracker, was that you?

I guess the intelligent portion of your country should be thankful that there isn't an amandement which grants every citizen of the US the right to "bear chemical weapons" or own "combat ready artillery". Otherwise, obviously, we would see quite a few people stacking up an arsenal of the latter and being asked why they need it, would reply "The 30th amendment!".
Also, I'd reckon, the threshold to firing an artillery onto some school or governmental institution which has caused you mischief must be much lower than carrying out an attack on foot.

I guess you can't blame a country whose people, on average, can't think more than a week or two ahead for taking the wording of their constitution for an ultimate truth. It's like watching a tribe of cavemen reading the instructions for driving a car, though. They are as apt as to follow the instructions in an almost dogmatic fashion, but they'll probably kill themselves in the process. If however, someone tries to tell them they are doing it wrong, they are pointing and gesticulating at the misunderstood instructions: "Well, can't you read?!"

BoneCracker, I've got news for you: The 2nd amendment was never meant to grant the people any liberty.

The 2nd amendment was meant to protect people in times of uncertainty, in 1790. It being a consitutional amendment instead of a law was questionable at that time and is even more so today. The 2nd amendment is far from being any God-given law. It was a practical concern at that time, when the executive forces of the country were not in the shape they are today, and today, it's outright deprecated.

It's fascinating to see how practically every argument vs. the right to purchase and bear arms is met with any stupidity necessary by the NRA and their associates.

Unfortunally for you, no matter how confused your arguments in defence of your right to bear arms become, the ultima ratio remains undeniable:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States

Statistics never lie. And the correlation between gun laws and gun violence is undeniable as well.

BoneCracker, I got yet more news for you:

Your country was never meant to grant you any liberties!

Shocking, isn't it? In fact, the whole and only purpose of a country is to take liberties from those who are part of it. A country/government imposes regulations for the well-being of their people.

I know, for a good part of the NRA the right to own guns directly equates to mental health. But here is the idea of a country: You make compromises for the well-being, not of a few (the NRA), but for the health of all. So, if we express the overall suffering as sum:

http://oi42.tinypic.com/24lvbmb.jpg

where s denotes the suffering of each individual i, and we try to minimize that over the gun laws, the suffering of the indifferent people will not change.

Now, it may be hard to grasp for someone who's been brought up sucking on a gun, but here is the $1000 question: Whose suffering dominates the sum as long as guns and their consequences (as proven by statistics) are as wide-spread as today? The suffering of those whose children and relatives are killed and those who are traumatized? Or the incredible suffering endured by the members of the NRA, who no longer may own a rifle?
_________________
PDF for documents is misused. Use HTML!
Math markup for HTML5
GCPM for Footnotes
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
wswartzendruber
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 23 Mar 2004
Posts: 1224
Location: Jefferson, USA

PostPosted: Tue May 07, 2013 2:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The primary function of my AR-15 is to serve as a home defense weapon. Because I live in California, I have a ten round magazine. Now let's look at that last sentence; it applies because I follow the rule of law. Interestingly, I am at a disadvantage because I choose to do so. Any intruder with half a brain is going to know how to get a high-capacity one.

Given that these magazines can be home-made out of 3-D printers now days, restricting law-abiding citizens from possessing them is...illogical. To sound progressive about it, it isn't fair.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ManDay
Apprentice
Apprentice


Joined: 22 Jan 2008
Posts: 209

PostPosted: Tue May 07, 2013 3:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

wswartzendruber wrote:
The primary function of my AR-15 is to serve as a home defense weapon. Because I live in California, I have a ten round magazine. Now let's look at that last sentence; it applies because I follow the rule of law. Interestingly, I am at a disadvantage because I choose to do so. Any intruder with half a brain is going to know how to get a high-capacity one.

Given that these magazines can be home-made out of 3-D printers now days, restricting law-abiding citizens from possessing them is...illogical. To sound progressive about it, it isn't fair.


You are ab-so-lu-te-ly right! Because the logical consequence of being threatened by violence is to out-threat back with even more violence!

A shame that your liberty and safety is being undermined by these illogical laws which worked so illogically well in that horribly illogical rest of the world.

And 3d printers, oh yes, certainly a game changer! Silly Europeans, still thinking they could control gun ownership while their people sit at home, printing out guns. Because we have all learned from the United States: Only a gun in every man's, woman's and child's hand keeps the country free and safe!

Be proud of your country!
_________________
PDF for documents is misused. Use HTML!
Math markup for HTML5
GCPM for Footnotes
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Muso
l33t
l33t


Joined: 22 Oct 2002
Posts: 656
Location: The Holy city of Honolulu

PostPosted: Tue May 07, 2013 4:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ManDay wrote:
I got yet more news for you:

Your country was never meant to grant you any liberties!

Shocking, isn't it? In fact, the whole and only purpose of a country is to take liberties from those who are part of it.


That's why we have a constitution and the bill of rights. The bill of rights is there to limit the power of government over the people.

Once you can wrap your head around that, you'll understand why "because of the second amendment" is a completely valid argument.
_________________
http://howdovaccinescauseautism.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ManDay
Apprentice
Apprentice


Joined: 22 Jan 2008
Posts: 209

PostPosted: Tue May 07, 2013 6:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Muso wrote:
ManDay wrote:
I got yet more news for you:

Your country was never meant to grant you any liberties!

Shocking, isn't it? In fact, the whole and only purpose of a country is to take liberties from those who are part of it.


That's why we have a constitution and the bill of rights. The bill of rights is there to limit the power of government over the people.


Good point. Now the question: What is intrinsically wrong with taking away the right to purchase and bear arms? You keep saying that as if it was some axiomatic thing, like human rights are (oh, wait, I forgot: The US don't really care about those).

It's not just a "good point", it's your only point. The only way you could possibly justify the 2nd amendment is by consistently argueing that the right to bear arms is a fundamental, axiomatic right. The chances are pretty much zero that you can do that, but give it a shot...

Quote:
Once you can wrap your head around that, you'll understand why "because of the second amendment" is a completely valid argument.


"Why do you need guns?" "Because of the 2nd amendmend!" ? If that's what you're saying, you're as thick as the person who shouted that from the back of the room. The 2nd amendment grants the legislative right, it does not imply any need, whatsoever. If not, please clarify to which question that is supposedly the answer.
_________________
PDF for documents is misused. Use HTML!
Math markup for HTML5
GCPM for Footnotes
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
sporkbox
n00b
n00b


Joined: 11 Sep 2012
Posts: 21
Location: United States

PostPosted: Tue May 07, 2013 8:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ManDay wrote:

Good point. Now the question: What is intrinsically wrong with taking away the right to purchase and bear arms?


It prevents people from defending themselves, against intruders or the government. In more rural areas, it prevents them from acquiring a gun to hunt for game and eat what they kill. Most importantly, taking away guns from law abiding people makes it easier for criminals to do their deeds. Take one look at Australia for proof.

To blindly trust the government is asking to be used, enslaved, or better yet, killed. The 2nd Amendment is the only thing that stops the government from wholesale exploitation of its people. The countries who have disarmed their public are a ticking time bomb of political and humanitarian disaster.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bones McCracker
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1565
Location: U.S.A.

PostPosted: Tue May 07, 2013 9:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

@ManChild ... eh, I mean "ManDay": the name is BoneKracker.

You're obviously brainwashed beyond the possibility of rescue, ManChild, so I'm not going to waste much of my time addressing your blather.

For example, why would anybody need a high capacity magazine? To be able to shoot a lot of people really quickly, duuh! The 2nd Amendment doesn't guarantee the right to bear arms for hunting squirrels. Does anybody want to say that to the father of a young child who was just gunned down by some maniac? Of course not.

ManDress.

This does not, however, change the value of individual citizens having their right to self-determination guaranteed by, as a last resort, the use of arms. This does not change the value of individual citizens having their right to defend themselves, their families and their property. Our police forces do not defend or protect anybody; they act after the fact to hopefully apprehend and bring to justice those who have broken the law. It also does not diminish the value of an armed citizenry being a very, very unattractive target for invasion.

You probably also didn't even bother to read what I wrote earlier, ManPurse, about how expanded background checks could be made to work. You probably read a line or two of one post or another, hit some trigger-phrase that tweaked your heavily-programmed frontal cortex, and started knee-jerking like a frog in the hands of a 10-year-old boy with a battery and a pair of wires. Also, your blind faith in whatever you read from your propaganda hose (i.e., "some report" you referred to) is appalling and pathetic. We don't have a "gun problem", we have a violence problem. Yet more restrictions on firearms aren't going to help, and it's just the authoritarian collectivists capitalizing on an opportunity to eliminate barriers to rapidly worsening authoritarianism. Lemmings like you are in line behind them chanting and singing, and circle-jerking around the bonfire, celebrating the destruction of your own individuality and human rights.

I'm not going to continue with a lengthy tirade. I'm too nauseated by the thought that half the people in this country are naive, credulous, weak-sphinctered livestock.
_________________
"We can't expect the American People to jump from Capitalism to Communism, but we can assist their elected leaders in giving them small doses of Socialism, until they awaken one day to find that they have Communism." -- Nikita Krushchev
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
wswartzendruber
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 23 Mar 2004
Posts: 1224
Location: Jefferson, USA

PostPosted: Tue May 07, 2013 11:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

@ManDay: I spent some time writing a response to your remark. I stopped because I found myself stating too many utterly obvious things.

EDIT: Are you a troll?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bones McCracker
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1565
Location: U.S.A.

PostPosted: Tue May 07, 2013 11:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

He's got nothing but strawmen. That's why his initial post was so long; he had to first lay out all the false arguments he was going to attack, and then attack them. For example, "because of the 2nd Amendment" being a response to "why you need guns". Strawmen are one of the lowest forms of argumentation, characteristic of middle school children. From this, we must surmise he has nothing actually worthwhile to say.
_________________
"We can't expect the American People to jump from Capitalism to Communism, but we can assist their elected leaders in giving them small doses of Socialism, until they awaken one day to find that they have Communism." -- Nikita Krushchev
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
wswartzendruber
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 23 Mar 2004
Posts: 1224
Location: Jefferson, USA

PostPosted: Wed May 08, 2013 12:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Your assessment is a bit more complicated than mine, and I had two possibilities:

1. He can't read English.
2. He's brain damaged.

But then again, I'm only a Marine, and I make assessments based on the obvious.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bones McCracker
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1565
Location: U.S.A.

PostPosted: Wed May 08, 2013 1:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

He also doesn't understand democracy. We can change our Constitution any time 2/3 of the people think it's the right thing to do, and we have changed it numerous times in the past.

Nobody is doing anything "just because it says so in the Constitution". They are doing it because it's a bedrock law, carefully designed to protect individual rights. It's not some relic of the past; it could have been struck down during any of the tens of thousands of Congressional or Supreme Court sessions that have been held, and many attempts have been made, and it has stood the test of time. Despite a vocal, strident, whining minority, the 2nd Amendment remains the will of the vast majority of the American People, and bedrock-level law.

Is there room for a better system of ownership, say universal background checks, for example? Sure there is. But, not if you're completely stupid about it. One of the principle reasons for the 2nd Amendment is to serve as a deterrent to the possibility of Federal Tyranny. It stands to reason, then, that we cannot let it be the Federal Government who regulate and/or restrict our right to bear arms. That's why the Constitution expressly forbids them from doing this. Does that mean it can't be done? Of course not, silly. It means that if we need this, the state Governors need to put together an inter-state mechanism to cooperate on gun ownership and regulation, that keeps the Federal Government out of it.

You want to know what bill would have passed? A bill requiring the states to do this, with the Federal Government staying out of it, leaving it up to the States to define what they would do, and with the Federal Government being expressly forbidden from tapping into any resulting system, regulating it, requesting reports from it, or copying its data. I guarantee you that Republicans would have passed that. So ask yourself why Democrats didn't take that approach?

I'll tell you why they didn't take that approach, because this isn't about "gun control", it's about increased authoritarianism at the Federal level, and it's about manipulating people's emotions and using them like sheep to further your political aims.

Here's a statistic you don't see much, and even Brian Jennings reported it tonight on NBC: gun violence has gone down 70% in the last 10 years (although Mr. Jennings act surprised). So why didn't we hear that from the likes of NBC earlier? Why, because that information doesn't support the legislative agenda of increased authoritarian restriction of the right to bear arms. So, why then are we hearing about it now? Well, it's Vagisil for the aching vaginas of the Extreme Left, lest they become too disappointed in Obama and Friends.

This whole gun rights issue is big, fat red herring. The point of it all is to distract from the failures of the Obama Administration and and Democrats to get anything accomplished. It's the exact same reason they pulled "Teh War on Wimmunz" out of their hat in the last election.

The economy has recovered at the sluggish pace we warned we have to suffer through if we didn't let them borrow $787 Billion extra in our names, and spend it on "shovel-ready projects". We've let go of the situation in Iraq and it's falling apart -- all that blood, suffering, and money is at risk of being pissed into the wind, for nothing. Obama has turned Afghanistan into a textbook case of Vietnam 2.0. Our ground forces are in the worst shape they've been since the early 1980s. The entire world feels like Obama conned them; he hasn't earned his Nobel Fapping Prize. The same is true domestically: Guantanamo is still open, etc., etc. Nobody got the "Hope and Change" they signed up for.

They've been hoodwinked again, in a second election. All the issues used by Democrats to rally enough support for a marginal re-election have fallen apart. Trayvon Martin turned about to be a fucking hoodlum who attacked first. The Benghazi Cover-Up, which the liberal media amply cooperated in, has come undone and the scandal is out. We've had an Islamist terrorist attack on our home soil -- the first since 9/11. Unemployment is still over 7.5%, and about 11% if you take out the funny math of not counting people who have been unemployed for more than a year. We still haven't done Jack Shit about climate change.

So, don't look at all that disappointing shit behind the curtain. I am Oz, the Great and Powerful taker away of evil "guns", which are making people kill each other! :roll:

Then they put together a bill they KNOW can't possibly pass, so that they can use the "nay" votes as election ammunition. But, what they didn't gamble on was their own populist demagoguery coming back to bite them in the ass. Instead of being angry at Republicans for not passing the bill that was presented, Democrats are angry at Obama and Congressional Democrats for failing to negotiate a reasonable proposal and getting something passed.

If indeed 90% of Americans want universal background checks, then how is it possible that Democrats could fail to get it passed in Congress? Democrats would like their constituents to believe they were "blocked" from doing this by Republicans, but the people are just not that stupid. They know that if Democrats had produced a reasonable bill (one that did not, for example, insist upon establishing a national Big Brother database of all gun owners run by the Federal Government's growing "law enforcement" army), that the Republicans would have to accept it, or they'd have to answer to that 90% statistic.

The truth is that the bill that went forward did not represent that 90% statistic at all. People know this intuitively. They know they are being bullshitted again. That's why Obama and the Democrats are feeling this backlash about gun control. They fucked the dog, on purpose, for their own political benefit, and the people are angry.

The most brainwashed of them will, of course, continue to shout idiotic nonsense about three-toothed rednecks and teh Evil Korporashuns holding the country hostage, because that's what the more extreme of the left-wing media are telling them to think. The insightful, meanwhile, understand they've been duped yet again.

I wonder what the next red herring will be. How much you want to bet Obama bombs or conducts drone strikes in Syria? "Look, over there! Squirrel!"
_________________
"We can't expect the American People to jump from Capitalism to Communism, but we can assist their elected leaders in giving them small doses of Socialism, until they awaken one day to find that they have Communism." -- Nikita Krushchev
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bones McCracker
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1565
Location: U.S.A.

PostPosted: Wed May 08, 2013 1:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

wswartzendruber wrote:
Your assessment is a bit more complicated than mine, and I had two possibilities:

1. He can't read English.
2. He's brain damaged.

But then again, I'm only a Marine, and I make assessments based on the obvious.

I think he is just very closed-minded and unwilling to think for himself. It takes courage to face one's cognitive dissonance. This is what helps me:

Bene Gesserit Litany Against Cognitive Dissonance Due to Collectivist Authoritarian Brainwashing wrote:
“I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain, with my will my own and my anus un-violated.”

_________________
"We can't expect the American People to jump from Capitalism to Communism, but we can assist their elected leaders in giving them small doses of Socialism, until they awaken one day to find that they have Communism." -- Nikita Krushchev
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Muso
l33t
l33t


Joined: 22 Oct 2002
Posts: 656
Location: The Holy city of Honolulu

PostPosted: Wed May 08, 2013 9:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

ManDay wrote:
Muso wrote:
ManDay wrote:
I got yet more news for you:

Your country was never meant to grant you any liberties!

Shocking, isn't it? In fact, the whole and only purpose of a country is to take liberties from those who are part of it.


That's why we have a constitution and the bill of rights. The bill of rights is there to limit the power of government over the people.


Good point. Now the question: What is intrinsically wrong with taking away the right to purchase and bear arms? You keep saying that as if it was some axiomatic thing, like human rights are (oh, wait, I forgot: The US don't really care about those).

It's not just a "good point", it's your only point. The only way you could possibly justify the 2nd amendment is by consistently argueing that the right to bear arms is a fundamental, axiomatic right. The chances are pretty much zero that you can do that, but give it a shot...


You really don't get it. The second amendment is a trump card. I do not need to construct a more detailed argument when I can basically shut down your entire argument with it.
_________________
http://howdovaccinescauseautism.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ManDay
Apprentice
Apprentice


Joined: 22 Jan 2008
Posts: 209

PostPosted: Wed May 08, 2013 1:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

There doesn't remain much of your argument after you filter out the pseudo-philosophical crap about freedom, individual rights and whatnot. I don't even expect you to come up with valid contra against the argument that by your confused logic, the limit should not be hand guns but instead, every possibly war machinery should be legal to purchase and operate because, hey, you have to protect yourself against the potentially tyrannic government whose tanks will crush your AR-15 under their tracks.

Less your hobby philosophic crap about liberty, the only thing which remains is the practical fact that you are those who value their personal desire to own a gun over the lifes of the thousands of people slained by gun violence and accidents every year.

That is you, minus your pathetic attempts at justifying yourself. Period.

You're just doing what I predicted people of your kin do in these kind of arguments: Obfuscate the debate to the point where all the hard facts (statistics about correlation gun laws and violence and just plain intelligence, for that matter) are covered under layers and layers of delirious, subjective bullshit no one can ever possibly disprove.

Your sort really has the unique ability to delude themselves without any bounds, whatsoever, once you got started. The power of the mind. Fascinating. Conspiracy theories about brain washing media, splendid! As if I were subjected to your media. No, BoneKracker, I, like the rest of the civilized world, access the situation with their brains and based upon facts, not their hearts. Without being indoctrinated with some vague notion of liberty, which every redneck in your country thinks he know what it means. Cut the crap. You like your guns, more than you care for the well-being of your people.

PS: You're perhaps right about those political theories of yours. Perhaps not. I don't distinguish between democrats and republicans in that matter. I distinguish only between stupid and intelligent decisions.
_________________
PDF for documents is misused. Use HTML!
Math markup for HTML5
GCPM for Footnotes
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
wswartzendruber
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 23 Mar 2004
Posts: 1224
Location: Jefferson, USA

PostPosted: Wed May 08, 2013 1:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think that law-abiding people allowing their weapons to be so easily stolen is the biggest problem.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
juniper
l33t
l33t


Joined: 22 Oct 2004
Posts: 757
Location: EU

PostPosted: Wed May 08, 2013 3:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

wswartzendruber wrote:
I think that law-abiding people allowing their weapons to be so easily stolen is the biggest problem.


how should it be dealt with? Perhaps you should propose something to congress. See if the republicans pass it.
_________________
wswartzendruber wrote:
Well, every group has its nutjobs, and the Second Amendment crowd is no exception.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bones McCracker
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1565
Location: U.S.A.

PostPosted: Thu May 09, 2013 1:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

ManDay wrote:
There doesn't remain much of your argument after you filter out the pseudo-philosophical crap about freedom, individual rights and whatnot. I don't even expect you to come up with valid contra against the argument that by your confused logic, the limit should not be hand guns but instead, every possibly war machinery should be legal to purchase and operate because, hey, you have to protect yourself against the potentially tyrannic government whose tanks will crush your AR-15 under their tracks.

Reducto ad absurdium fail. Citizens don't need tanks or jets, or other heavy military weapons, for several reasons (read all before knee-jerking):

a. no modern, democratic nation's Army is going to use heavy military weapons against its own people; you won't find one case in history of any nation's military being successfully set upon its own people in full-scale warfare upon the general population; they simply refuse to do it, and such a request is usually followed shortly by coup d'etat or assassination

b. no army on Earth today, heavy weapons or not, can stand against 50 to 100 million armed men (I tell you this as a former Army officer)

c. most importantly, the deterrent effect does not require that the armed populace be able to defeat the military; the deterrent effect is achieved by merely through the potential to force the authoritarian state to overtly use heavy military force, rather than being able to achieve its ends with a more subtle use of force, such as para-military secret police (e.g., GDR's Stasi, Sparta's Krypteia) or partisan paramilitary thugs (e.g., Nazi "Brown-Shirts", Iranian "Pasdaran", or the old U.S. Democratic Party's Ku Klux Klan).

ManDay wrote:
You're just doing what I predicted people of your kin do in these kind of arguments: Obfuscate the debate to the point where all the hard facts (statistics about correlation gun laws and violence and just plain intelligence, for that matter) are covered under layers and layers of delirious, subjective bullshit no one can ever possibly disprove.

Wrong. The scientific studies show no link between firearm regulation and rates of violence or rates of homicide. That's cold, hard science. Attempt after attempt has been made to prove such hypotheses, and every serious, credible effort has failed. You're the one who is in denial. Lashing out emotionally and without logic, being irrational and unreasonable, ignoring the facts. Violence rates and homicide rates have far, far more to do with any number of other factors (e.g., cultural glorification of violence, poverty and unemployment rates, substance abuse and mental health rates, etc., etc., etc.). All of these thing can be proven to be related to rates of violence and homicide. But that causes a cognitive dissonance in your programmed brain, because you know that you're supposed to believe "it's teh Gunz!". (Wrong, fool. It's a people problem; a culture problem, a social problem and there is no one magic spell you can cast to make it go away, whether Daddy Government is telling you that or not, and whether it appeals to your quasi-religious, collectivist authoritarian indoctrinated brain or not.)

Also, your use of the phrase "people of your kind" shows how your mind works. You don't know me, you don't know shit about me, but you think you know "the type". That, my friend, is pre-judging (prejudice). It's bigotry. It's also quite characteristic of the heavily indoctrinated -- the brainwashed. Furthermore, it's irrational and logically unsound.

ManDay wrote:
I, like the rest of the civilized world, access the situation with their brains and based upon facts, not their hearts. Without being indoctrinated with some vague notion of liberty, which every redneck in your country thinks he know what it means. Cut the crap. You like your guns, more than you care for the well-being of your people.

Oh, so now you speak for the entire civilized world, do you? :lol:

That's called "argumentum ad populum", by the way, and it's yet another logical fallacy. You couldn't string together a coherent argument, based on rational, logical thinking, if it killed you. All you've done is spout off emotionally, ignore all the logical, fact-based arguments which have been presented by others, spew baseless ad hominem attacks, and claim (based on absolutely nothing whatsoever), to be right. How about you get off your high horse, open your mind, and engage your brain. At least entertain the possibility that you could be wrong. I have done so, and that's why my current position on this matter is not extremist, but rather a reasonable, middle-of-the-road approach.

Extremism will burn you out, and you're not even doing it for yourself. You're doing because other people are pulling your puppet strings, and you haven't even begun to admit this to yourself, much less understand how and why. You believe your a free-thinking individual who has arrived at your beliefs based on facts and through independent reasons, but here's the proof that you're not: you can't even put together a decent argument to support and justify your beliefs. That ought to tell you something. Now go think about why that is.
_________________
"We can't expect the American People to jump from Capitalism to Communism, but we can assist their elected leaders in giving them small doses of Socialism, until they awaken one day to find that they have Communism." -- Nikita Krushchev


Last edited by Bones McCracker on Thu May 09, 2013 4:04 am; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bones McCracker
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1565
Location: U.S.A.

PostPosted: Thu May 09, 2013 1:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

juniper wrote:
wswartzendruber wrote:
I think that law-abiding people allowing their weapons to be so easily stolen is the biggest problem.


how should it be dealt with? Perhaps you should propose something to congress. See if the republicans pass it.

You asked me the same sort of question, and then, if I'm not mistaken, you ignored my answer.

I said the Federal Government needs to encourage or compel the states to have better gun control, but stay out of it. The reasons for this is that one of the primary reasons for the 2nd amendment is to serve as a deterrent to Federal tyranny. That, and to serve as a deterrent to invasion and to guarantee the common man the right to defend what's his, is why the 2nd Amendment exists. The states already cooperate quite well on motor vehicle licensing and registration. A virtual duplication of the same system, complete with inter-state cooperation agreements between all 50 states, would serve quite well, and overcome most objections to the Federal legislation that was just shot down. Any Federal legislation encouraging or compelling the states to engage in such a thing would have to expressly forbid the Federal Government from accessing the information, or requiring specific methods or levels of "compliance". That would have to remain up to each state.

If indeed 90% of Americans favor universal background checks, then there you have it. Everbody puts a new booth in the Department of Motor Vehicles, and people are required to be licensed to own a gun (and to renew said license periodically), and to register their firearms (and to renew said registration periodically). This would cover the background check issue, because the states could all exchange that data. This would also address the problem of guns finding their way into criminal hands, because now, people would be held accountable for maintaining possession of their firearm. How exactly this would be done, and to what extent, would be up to each state.

That's a reasonable Federal approach, and I can't imagine it not passing.
_________________
"We can't expect the American People to jump from Capitalism to Communism, but we can assist their elected leaders in giving them small doses of Socialism, until they awaken one day to find that they have Communism." -- Nikita Krushchev
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
wswartzendruber
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 23 Mar 2004
Posts: 1224
Location: Jefferson, USA

PostPosted: Thu May 09, 2013 2:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

1. I didn't catch that answer the first time.
2. My recent post didn't say anything about holding the negligent owner as an accessory to the crime committed.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bones McCracker
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1565
Location: U.S.A.

PostPosted: Thu May 09, 2013 2:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I don't know if you're addressing me or not, but I was addressing juniper.
_________________
"We can't expect the American People to jump from Capitalism to Communism, but we can assist their elected leaders in giving them small doses of Socialism, until they awaken one day to find that they have Communism." -- Nikita Krushchev
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic    Gentoo Forums Forum Index Off the Wall All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Page 3 of 4

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum