Guns again...

Duck and cover
User avatar
digress
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1692
Joined: Thu May 22, 2014 2:11 am
Custom Title: doomer
Contact:

Re: Guns again...

Postby digress » Sun Jun 15, 2014 2:35 am

Scott Mayers wrote:We had this from time immemorial even without such powerful tools of mass destruction! And that is what guns represent here. What do you mean 'if violent people are able to persuade.."? Do you think that it is the words that such a violent person alone that qualify as 'violent'? So, perhaps to you if you should be held up by a gun now, not even the weapon has power over your decision to give in to such violence. Then who even needs a gun to protect themselves here under your reasoning? Your act to carry a weapon of relatively mass destruction acts as a tool to go beyond your own natural capacity to defend without. But you, and not those other people you prefer to call 'violent' actually ARE one of those violent people and moreso if you don't even assure that each and every other person around you are equally armed. Otherwise, you act as a bully.


What do you mean 'if violent people are able to persuade.."?

Sir, I tell you now that if I were in the unfortunate position of having a gun pointed at me, to hold me, they would serve their purpose better to shoot. I tell you this knowing that I’ve no control over the decision of a gun holder to not pull that trigger and so my focus would be on being able to first remove the threat. Disarming them at all costs! It would be a very scary and uncertain scenario to be in which is why it serves my purpose better now to understand my values and establish first principle.

Again, I do it to protect freedoms of these potential maniacs. It is not an easy thing to consider because it bears the responsibility of being uncertain for a principle I wish to uphold and value. This is not something for a child or coward or mere spectator to defend or hope to accomplish. I am not a violent person, but I understand that as an adult my non-violent nature is due credit to the values this society was based on. With that said, I practice free inquiry and encourage open discussion over all other alternatives because we’ve freedoms not to be taken lightly.

You are not free to assume that this does not mean I am not capable of violence. This is why I say pacifism is immoral. People have tendencies to think in linear patterns until they’ve hit an extreme coast. So they say things like, Violence is bad and so violence is never to be used. I say this is immoral because I believe violence not bad, but instead barbaric. It is a barbaric appeal! In a civil society our responsibility not rest with avoiding barbarism, but upholding non-barbaric values!
And so I’d ask you politely not to group me in with violent individuals simply because I don’t vow to never use violence! You make the appeal of a child here.


Scott Mayers wrote:If you need an experiment of this, take two strolls down Broadway in New York City at rush hour, one in where you stroll with a big gun in your hand and another in which you do not. (I would recommend that if you actually carry such an experiment that you reverse the above procedure! ;) Poll how 'freely' you feel in being able to walk a block in each instance. Also poll the passersby to learn how 'freely' they feel during each stroll also. Which one do you feel gives you the most 'freedom'; which one does the rest of the crowd find gives them the most 'freedom'? Do you believe that these should be the same?


I don’t give a {!#%@} about the consensus of any crowd, especially in NY. I’ve said this specifically more than once in this thread, that I defend gun owners the right to carry a gun in their homes! The gun lobbyists who want to be able to bring their weapon into the streets, into Target, etc are BS! May I at least have the courtesy of only being responsible for what I say? Or do I need to type up a defense for every American or gun idiot you’ve come across? I’ll try to be as plain as possible when I say that anyone who defends the 2nd amendment is right, but may be right for all the wrong reasons. I’m not here to address their poor reasons- only my own poor reasoning.


Scott Mayers wrote: You can't win with your logic here.


Listen, if owning a gun means you’ll feel safe I’d defend your right to do it.
If you are afraid another person might use a gun not for safety, but for criminality, I’d defend your right to feel safer by protecting your right to own a gun. However, I'd suggest there are better ways to approach life's problems.
If another person uses the freedom of gun ownership to commit crimes (like rape) I’d ask adults who run into this criminal seek to apprehend the person by first disarming them and then punishing. (this includes a 1v1 encounter)
If neither of you owned a gun I’d question how you both possibly manage and encourage your understanding in others.

For example, my sister likes to joke around on this topic by saying, "I can't own a gun because then I'd have to shoot somebody." She understands the irony of the situation. She also happens to live in a very violent (poor) neighborhood. She has two kids and is raising them alone yet she doesn't seem to be afraid of gun owners. I wonder why that is.

Scott Mayers wrote:
digress wrote: I am asking you not take my civility for granted.


Then you have to demonstrate by example and show that you do not possess any threat upon other's right to the assumption of their civility. But yet you choose fearing the other by default while thinking you are naturally some non-threat???


I don't fear anybody, but may become frightful in a scary situation (having a gun pointed at me). It is in these moments I seek my resolve. I'm demonstrating to you by example here I posses no threat upon your right to assume your own civility. Point a gun at me and I will demonstrate to you how you've lost that assumption.
Last edited by digress on Sun Jun 15, 2014 2:44 am, edited 1 time in total.
  God is an idea.  

"For now, I am going to err on the side of freedom of speech..." -Pyrrho
"Every instance that has always existed is a piece of evidence that God is not needed." -yrreg
"I am not a concept..." -Confidencia

User avatar
digress
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1692
Joined: Thu May 22, 2014 2:11 am
Custom Title: doomer
Contact:

Re: Guns again...

Postby digress » Sun Jun 15, 2014 2:39 am

Scott Mayers wrote:Imagine that I draw a line in the sand for you and ask you how you could make it shorter? Tell me how you'd do this, digress?

EDIT: here is such a line:
_____________________


I'd have to first wait for somebody else to trip over it.
  God is an idea.  

"For now, I am going to err on the side of freedom of speech..." -Pyrrho
"Every instance that has always existed is a piece of evidence that God is not needed." -yrreg
"I am not a concept..." -Confidencia

User avatar
Scott Mayers
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2331
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2012 4:56 pm
Custom Title: Deep

Re: Guns again...

Postby Scott Mayers » Sun Jun 15, 2014 4:17 am

digress wrote:
Scott Mayers wrote:
digress wrote:Hold the phone.

Are you trying to say that because this amendment is in place nobody can propose we limit, for example, hand grenades and automatic assault rifles? (If that is not your point I'll need to come back and re-address everything you wrote.)


Very much so. Since 'guns' have been open to interpretation to extend beyond the scope of those used when it was written into law, then any similar mechanism to kill applies. In fact, 'guns' for the militia in the original Constitution also included the rights of militias to have canons too. But because all of these weapons have been extended beyond their scope, no one should impose limitations on what one means by any such tool of elimination. It was already understood in their day that one could naturally carry all other available weapons, like swords or knives. So to be fair to the intention of the law of their day, to extend it to today must not limit any weapon. And if you believe limits should exist, then that Constitutional law can no longer be maintained as an absolute....because if would then be conditional only, contradicting such absolution. It is only where you believe that everyone should by default be allowed to have weapons unconditionally does this prove that you cannot even suggest even regulation on a local level.


HOLD the phone...

I thought rules/restrictions existed on guns. I've already implied they do and agreed those restrictions were alright for limiting the choice(not for removing it).

I asked the question above because everything you wrote in that later-reply appeared to say that restrictions are implemented, but then the government removes those restrictions as unconstitutional. So in effect, no restrictions exist! Your issue with the 2nd amendment is that the 27th amendment says, "No government shall be allowed to even propose a bill regarding any such limitations."(limits on guns) Correct?

I feel like you're hearing a foreign language here. If you read it properly you'd know that I was illustrating how the logic of the present condition of the Constitution asserts that no restrictions apply except for those implemented unconstitutionally unchallenged. In other words, if you take the law as you interpret it, you'd have to recognize that even your police and military as an extension of the government is illegitimate. The only reason it isn't affected is because the constitution is not challenged. In other words, the very existence of any contingent laws that limit by means of even things like regulations or licensing doesn't follow as these are still laws in which government create to limit individual freedoms to have them.

And now you also drag another Herring across the trail by feigning that I was discussing the 27th Amendment here?? I clearly laid out that should a new law be created and the 2nd canceled, all the other amendments move up one position such that the third is relabeled the 2nd, the 4th becomes the third all the way up to the 27th to become the 26th. And then, the 27th NUMBER is granted to the new law. You're only proving to me how your religious nature to relate the number as the name signifying the historical amendments are of a scriptural adherence....pride....religion.
I eat without fear of certain Death from The Tree of Knowledge because with wisdom, we may one day break free from its mortal curse.

User avatar
digress
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1692
Joined: Thu May 22, 2014 2:11 am
Custom Title: doomer
Contact:

Re: Guns again...

Postby digress » Sun Jun 15, 2014 4:35 am

Scott Mayers wrote:I feel like you're hearing a foreign language here. If you read it properly you'd know that I was illustrating how the logic of the present condition of the Constitution asserts that no restrictions apply except for those implemented unconstitutionally unchallenged. In other words, if you take the law as you interpret it, you'd have to recognize that even your police and military as an extension of the government is illegitimate. The only reason it isn't affected is because the constitution is not challenged. In other words, the very existence of any contingent laws that limit by means of even things like regulations or licensing doesn't follow as these are still laws in which government create to limit individual freedoms to have them.


I said 27th amendment because that was your example. All you had to say was "No". I don't participate in assuming a position to either strengthen or derail an argument. I was making sure this was first not the case. You again go off on assuming I'm deriving more meaning behind bearing the question... and I clearly said when I asked that if I was wrong I'd be forced to back and re-review what you wrote.

Scott Mayers wrote:And now you also drag another Herring across the trail by feigning that I was discussing the 27th Amendment here?? I clearly laid out that should a new law be created and the 2nd canceled, all the other amendments move up one position such that the third is relabeled the 2nd, the 4th becomes the third all the way up to the 27th to become the 26th. And then, the 27th NUMBER is granted to the new law. You're only proving to me how your religious nature to relate the number as the name signifying the historical amendments are of a scriptural adherence....pride....religion.


My religious nature to relate to numbers shows my scriptural adherence.

Well, I guess you've shown that my pride is evident, is the issue and that my reasoning lacks "logic" because it points to absolutism. However, if that isn't the case you'd just reiterate how foreign my reading apprehension is so I suppose I'll just resign from the argument. Please enjoy! I had fun.
  God is an idea.  

"For now, I am going to err on the side of freedom of speech..." -Pyrrho
"Every instance that has always existed is a piece of evidence that God is not needed." -yrreg
"I am not a concept..." -Confidencia

User avatar
Scott Mayers
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2331
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2012 4:56 pm
Custom Title: Deep

Re: Guns again...

Postby Scott Mayers » Sun Jun 15, 2014 5:18 am

Imagine that I draw a line in the sand for you and ask you how you could make it shorter? Tell me how you'd do this, digress?

EDIT: here is such a line: SOLUTION:
Spoiler:
_____________________
_____________________________________________
I eat without fear of certain Death from The Tree of Knowledge because with wisdom, we may one day break free from its mortal curse.

User avatar
Major Malfunction
Has No Life
Posts: 11293
Joined: Wed May 10, 2006 6:20 am
Custom Title: Dérailleur Énigmatique

Re: Guns again...

Postby Major Malfunction » Sun Jun 15, 2014 5:40 am

Statistically, overall, owning a gun makes you more likely to be killed by a gun than a random, unarmed person just wandering down the street minding his own business.

You can't argue with that. Owning a gun makes you less safe.
This being was produced using the same process as other beings, and therefore, may contain traces of nuts.

User avatar
digress
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1692
Joined: Thu May 22, 2014 2:11 am
Custom Title: doomer
Contact:

Re: Guns again...

Postby digress » Sun Jun 15, 2014 6:01 am

Major Malfunction wrote:Statistically, overall, owning a gun makes you more likely to be killed by a gun than a random, unarmed person just wandering down the street minding his own business.

You can't argue with that. Owning a gun makes you less safe.


Did you just say that gun owners are more likely to be killed by their guns because people without guns are less likely to die by a gun? Because I'd agree you can't argue with that :lol: :lol: :lol:
  God is an idea.  

"For now, I am going to err on the side of freedom of speech..." -Pyrrho
"Every instance that has always existed is a piece of evidence that God is not needed." -yrreg
"I am not a concept..." -Confidencia

User avatar
Kaepora Gaebora
Regular Poster
Posts: 626
Joined: Sun Jul 21, 2013 10:41 pm

Re: Guns again...

Postby Kaepora Gaebora » Sun Jun 15, 2014 6:15 am

What I have to say about guns....

Guns are fine. People can buy them. They can be fun to fire for target practice. They are fine for reasonable self-defense. But bringing out a pistol or assault rifle into public view is frightening and potentially dangerous. Certain restrictions and moderate background checks are needed for prevention of gun violence (and to be clear, it's not about 100% prevention; chasing the dream of non-violence is a fairy tale). Taking away guns won't stop people from being violent, even with guns. And the Constitution is an old document that has many amendments not meant for our time, so the intent is fully up for reinterpretation and the words are not absolute.

I've been on the very far left end of the spectrum on gun rights, that is, complete ban guns or extremely strict laws. I realize now the folly of that as guns are merely a good that can be used for recreation but can also be dangerous like other items, although much more so and much easier.

User avatar
digress
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1692
Joined: Thu May 22, 2014 2:11 am
Custom Title: doomer
Contact:

Re: Guns again...

Postby digress » Sun Jun 15, 2014 6:33 am

Kaepora Gaebora wrote: And the Constitution is an old document that has many amendments not meant for our time, so the intent is fully up for reinterpretation and the words are not absolute.


Whoa feller. People don't want to re-word it, they want to remove it.

I thought maybe that's what Scott Mayers ended on last, but when I asked if this was so, was told no.

I think re-wording is a legit proposal. It's way more constructive than all the other arguments against the amendment so far combined. But I don't think this compromise will do because there is an eerie despair within the reading of those who really want to see this amendment erased.

Kaepora Gaebora wrote: I realize now the folly of that as guns are merely a good that can be used for recreation but can also be dangerous like other items, although much more so and much easier.


Earlier I said...
digress wrote:I propose that restricting freedom is not a solution and having the freedom only empowers motive for good, not evil.


I think our statements reflect each other. :)

It's a win for free society to continue it's practice of this freedom.
  God is an idea.  

"For now, I am going to err on the side of freedom of speech..." -Pyrrho
"Every instance that has always existed is a piece of evidence that God is not needed." -yrreg
"I am not a concept..." -Confidencia

User avatar
Kaepora Gaebora
Regular Poster
Posts: 626
Joined: Sun Jul 21, 2013 10:41 pm

Re: Guns again...

Postby Kaepora Gaebora » Sun Jun 15, 2014 6:48 am

digress wrote:
Kaepora Gaebora wrote: And the Constitution is an old document that has many amendments not meant for our time, so the intent is fully up for reinterpretation and the words are not absolute.


Whoa feller. People don't want to re-word it, they want to remove it. I thought maybe that's what Scott Mayers ended on last, but when I asked if this was so, was told no.

I think re-wording is a legit proposal. It's way more constructive than all the other arguments against the amendment so far combined. But I don't think this compromise will do because there is an eerie despair within the reading of those who really want to see this amendment erased.


I know there are people wanting to take it away entirely, but I wasn't referring to them. :P
Kaepora Gaebora wrote: I realize now the folly of that as guns are merely a good that can be used for recreation but can also be dangerous like other items, although much more so and much easier.


Earlier I said...
digress wrote:I propose that restricting freedom is not a solution and having the freedom only empowers motive for good, not evil.


I think our statements reflect each other. :)

It's a win for free society to continue it's practice of this freedom.


Having a tyrannical nation definitely can be 'evil', and that is of course subjective in itself of what evil is. But I do agree that freedom of a nation, despite the idiots, nutters-butters, or sociopaths that abuse it, is better than one of dictatorship. That's not to say complete freedom is good; anarchy can end up hurting many for the price of complete freedom. So, in addition, a person's freedom ends where others safety and well-being begins. That's a hard and complicated line to draw, though.

User avatar
Major Malfunction
Has No Life
Posts: 11293
Joined: Wed May 10, 2006 6:20 am
Custom Title: Dérailleur Énigmatique

Re: Guns again...

Postby Major Malfunction » Sun Jun 15, 2014 6:54 am

digress wrote:
Major Malfunction wrote:Statistically, overall, owning a gun makes you more likely to be killed by a gun than a random, unarmed person just wandering down the street minding his own business.

You can't argue with that. Owning a gun makes you less safe.

Did you just say that gun owners are more likely to be killed by their guns because people without guns are less likely to die by a gun? Because I'd agree you can't argue with that :lol: :lol: :lol:

Live by the sword, die by the sword. It's true.

And not just your own gun. People who own guns are more likely to be killed by other people who own guns, than someone who doesn't.

If you're afraid of being murdered by someone with a gun, not owning one is the safest option.

Look it up.

And think about it. If someone is already pointing a gun at you, and you reach for your gun, they're gonna shoot you.

An unarmed person puts their hands up, hands over their wallet, calls the bank to cancel their credit card, gets a new one in the post a week later, and goes along his merry way.

Generally, people don't want to get killed. Muggers and burglars are mostly just desperate people trying to survive. Give them what they need, and they'll go away.

If you had a better social welfare system in the US you wouldn't have this problem driving people over the edge of desperation. Perfectly normal and lovely people will do anything to feed themselves and their families when they're starving.

I'm happy to pay my taxes for social welfare, because I know I'll need it sometimes. And when I don't need it I know someone else will, and I don't want them to hold a knife in my face. I consider it as a kind of social insurance.

But then there are the socio- and psycho-paths. Keep the {!#%@} guns out of their hands. FFS.
This being was produced using the same process as other beings, and therefore, may contain traces of nuts.

User avatar
Kaepora Gaebora
Regular Poster
Posts: 626
Joined: Sun Jul 21, 2013 10:41 pm

Re: Guns again...

Postby Kaepora Gaebora » Sun Jun 15, 2014 7:13 am

Is it possible that carrying a gun is not necessarily cause for an increased probability for being shot? Like, being a cop involves carrying a gun for their line of work; without it they would still get shot. Or that these people live in a dangerous area that owning a gun wouldn't change the probability of being shot there? Or people being dumbasses with guns.

User avatar
Scott Mayers
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2331
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2012 4:56 pm
Custom Title: Deep

Re: Guns again...

Postby Scott Mayers » Sun Jun 15, 2014 7:32 am

I think you gun supporters are acting in the belief that others are mere collateral damage to your goals here?
The blood of all those victims are on YOUR hands for the sake of your feigned need for comfort in a world that is only reacting to your own puffing, gloating, and arrogance here. And then you'd pretend to support what you call, "freedom", when this is only conditionally available for you yourselves? Saying it -- correction: screaming it, doesn't make it real. Your freedom rests on the enslavement of the vast majority of those who you show contempt for but can easily transfer your guilt upon those who blow themselves in revolt against tyranny, an act for which the Second Amendment actually was created for. But these so-called rebels are what you label as the terrorists?

You guys are sick and you know it. That's why you are so paranoid of the world you steal from. I see how this need to demand more guns suites your escalating demand here. The more killings you cause by placing weapons in the hands of the desperate and weak, the more reason you find to justify needing these guns more for yourself. You use these guns to protect your stockpile of even the food scraps from being stolen by the desperate masses in order to allow it to rot rather than to allow the hungry to get a 'free' meal! And then you let them fight with each other so that they'll appear to have voluntarily eliminated themselves. Your hands are clean right?

And you want the rest of us to understand that you mean well?
I eat without fear of certain Death from The Tree of Knowledge because with wisdom, we may one day break free from its mortal curse.

User avatar
Major Malfunction
Has No Life
Posts: 11293
Joined: Wed May 10, 2006 6:20 am
Custom Title: Dérailleur Énigmatique

Re: Guns again...

Postby Major Malfunction » Sun Jun 15, 2014 7:35 am

Kaepora Gaebora wrote:Is it possible that carrying a gun is not necessarily cause for an increased probability for being shot? Like, being a cop involves carrying a gun for their line of work; without it they would still get shot. Or that these people live in a dangerous area that owning a gun wouldn't change the probability of being shot there? Or people being dumbasses with guns.

Obviously, cops get shot more often than a civvie walking down the street, because cops have a duty to go into dangerous situations.

But English bobbies don't even carry guns, and yet the murder rate is much lower in the UK compared to the US. Even accounting for all other potential weapons.

Justify that.
This being was produced using the same process as other beings, and therefore, may contain traces of nuts.

User avatar
digress
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1692
Joined: Thu May 22, 2014 2:11 am
Custom Title: doomer
Contact:

Re: Guns again...

Postby digress » Sun Jun 15, 2014 7:42 am

Major Malfunction wrote:Live by the sword, die by the sword. It's true.

And not just your own gun. People who own guns are more likely to be killed by other people who own guns, than someone who doesn't.

If you're afraid of being murdered by someone with a gun, not owning one is the safest option.

Look it up.

And think about it. If someone is already pointing a gun at you, and you reach for your gun, they're gonna shoot you.

An unarmed person puts their hands up, hands over their wallet, calls the bank to cancel their credit card, gets a new one in the post a week later, and goes along his merry way.

Generally, people don't want to get killed. Muggers and burglars are mostly just desperate people trying to survive. Give them what they need, and they'll go away.

If you had a better social welfare system in the US you wouldn't have this problem driving people over the edge of desperation. Perfectly normal and lovely people will do anything to feed themselves and their families when they're starving.

I'm happy to pay my taxes for social welfare, because I know I'll need it sometimes. And when I don't need it I know someone else will, and I don't want them to hold a knife in my face. I consider it as a kind of social insurance.

But then there are the socio- and psycho-paths. Keep the {!#%@} guns out of their hands. FFS.


Ok, so let's remove the freedom because poor people are liable to use a gun when hungry!

I propose no gun violence would exist if only we could get Kim Jung Ill into office. Statistics show that only loving the dear leader ensures a long, non-complicated life!


Scott Mayers wrote:I think you gun supporters are acting in the belief that others are mere collateral damage to your goals here?
The blood of all those victims are on YOUR hands...


I dont own a gun. But ok, I put the bullet into the psychopaths gun for supporting responsible gun ownership. The same way I put the words into the mouths of every hate speech advocate by defending free speech.
  God is an idea.  

"For now, I am going to err on the side of freedom of speech..." -Pyrrho
"Every instance that has always existed is a piece of evidence that God is not needed." -yrreg
"I am not a concept..." -Confidencia

User avatar
digress
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1692
Joined: Thu May 22, 2014 2:11 am
Custom Title: doomer
Contact:

Re: Guns again...

Postby digress » Sun Jun 15, 2014 7:47 am

Major Malfunction wrote:Obviously, cops get shot more often than a civvie walking down the street, because cops have a duty to go into dangerous situations.


Hold on. Just being around a gun is a dangerous situation. I'm living on the edge of my daily peril just by driving past the gun store everyday down the block from my job! Being a cop is amateur hour here in the United Gun Totin' Pride Hootin' States.
  God is an idea.  

"For now, I am going to err on the side of freedom of speech..." -Pyrrho
"Every instance that has always existed is a piece of evidence that God is not needed." -yrreg
"I am not a concept..." -Confidencia

User avatar
Scott Mayers
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2331
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2012 4:56 pm
Custom Title: Deep

Re: Guns again...

Postby Scott Mayers » Sun Jun 15, 2014 8:07 am

While you appear to be fair and relatively innocent with regards to others, digress, this isn't just about you here. It is an issue for which those who would prefer to prevent even allowing one the platform to speak after they've finished there own, who pose the threat. "Oops, times up..., sorry we don't have more time for you to speak here; but we've just been told that there is another terrorist lurking in the woods just behind the podium here!"

As for any dictator, the power of those like Kim Jung doesn't seem to have as much power as the rest of the world's ability to sanction them. And besides, I didn't see your most fervent supporters preferring to help "free" these North Koreans. Rather, you'd support those who don't even really want or need your help in the Middle East? And just to help you understand something that gets significantly missed with regards to things like Communism, to those within those countries, they see their "leader" as mostly incarnate Constitutional protectors separate from the process of their regular governments as the Queen of England is to Constitutional Monarchy. I can't argue for the specific forms such as North Korea as we are as much being blocked out from learning the details of their actual regime as they are of ours.

To them, our leaders are "dictators" who have much more clever skills at appearing to be voluntarily supported by the populous by our own propaganda. George Bush represents a modern-day National Socialist who has simply learned how to conveniently hide the bodies behind the smoke screen of terrorism.
I eat without fear of certain Death from The Tree of Knowledge because with wisdom, we may one day break free from its mortal curse.

User avatar
Kaepora Gaebora
Regular Poster
Posts: 626
Joined: Sun Jul 21, 2013 10:41 pm

Re: Guns again...

Postby Kaepora Gaebora » Sun Jun 15, 2014 8:16 am

Scott Mayers wrote:I think you gun supporters are acting in the belief that others are mere collateral damage to your goals here?
The blood of all those victims are on YOUR hands for the sake of your feigned need for comfort in a world that is only reacting to your own puffing, gloating, and arrogance here. And then you'd pretend to support what you call, "freedom", when this is only conditionally available for you yourselves? Saying it -- correction: screaming it, doesn't make it real. Your freedom rests on the enslavement of the vast majority of those who you show contempt for but can easily transfer your guilt upon those who blow themselves in revolt against tyranny, an act for which the Second Amendment actually was created for. But these so-called rebels are what you label as the terrorists?

You guys are sick and you know it. That's why you are so paranoid of the world you steal from. I see how this need to demand more guns suites your escalating demand here. The more killings you cause by placing weapons in the hands of the desperate and weak, the more reason you find to justify needing these guns more for yourself. You use these guns to protect your stockpile of even the food scraps from being stolen by the desperate masses in order to allow it to rot rather than to allow the hungry to get a 'free' meal! And then you let them fight with each other so that they'll appear to have voluntarily eliminated themselves. Your hands are clean right?

And you want the rest of us to understand that you mean well?


I'm not sure who you are responding to. If it's me or includes me, you're misrepresenting the position I take. I don't want more guns to solve problems. I don't want unrestricted access to guns, as a matter of fact, more restrictions would be nice especially at gun shows and for mental status. However, restrictions really only go so far. It's impossible to prevent future crimes involving guns. Taking everything into account for what creates a shooting can help, but there is only so far we can go, especially with the culture of the US.

On top of that, I don't want guns taken away from people or inhibit their freedom to simply own a weapon and use it in just manner such as target practice or defense or hunting. At the same time I don't want guns openly carried in public places or being used to threaten or kill people.

User avatar
Major Malfunction
Has No Life
Posts: 11293
Joined: Wed May 10, 2006 6:20 am
Custom Title: Dérailleur Énigmatique

Re: Guns again...

Postby Major Malfunction » Sun Jun 15, 2014 8:23 am

digress wrote:Ok, so let's remove the freedom because poor people are liable to use a gun when hungry!

Such a fallacious argument really doesn't bear a reply. Remember, you're playing with the big boys. Play nice, and don't cry if your feelings get hurt.

But since we're playing...

You're a troll.
This being was produced using the same process as other beings, and therefore, may contain traces of nuts.

User avatar
Scott Mayers
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2331
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2012 4:56 pm
Custom Title: Deep

Re: Guns again...

Postby Scott Mayers » Sun Jun 15, 2014 8:34 am

Kaepora, I recognize that you are not believing in the absolute preservation of gun-rights without specific limitations as I do with digress. Like I said to her, however, this is not just about you. And what you don't realize is that in order to fix this requires first eliminating or changing the Constitution to simply refrain government from methods to abstain their ability to become tyrannical at worst. The present second amendment and the way it is interpreted today defeats this function by deluding those like yourself into believing that this law is to protect you when this is not the actual case.

Gun restrictions can only be introduced as legitimate if the powers of the representatives you elect are able to have the sincerity to both introduce new laws while also not being in contempt of the Constitution for which the powerful gun lobby is able to manipulate for their own benefits and the political ideals of those who favor them. Your increased demand by the masses alone make the demand high enough to allow the gun manufacturers to make these more available to criminals with relative ease. In contrast, with more strict limitations, the demand drops for manufacturing and make these tools less available when more people stop buying them.

Read the examples I gave above to digress and tell me how you'd respond to how it is least likely to be violent when both parties to a dispute or crime are to occur but way more deadly if even one of them has one.
I eat without fear of certain Death from The Tree of Knowledge because with wisdom, we may one day break free from its mortal curse.

User avatar
Scott Mayers
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2331
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2012 4:56 pm
Custom Title: Deep

Re: Guns again...

Postby Scott Mayers » Sun Jun 15, 2014 8:37 am

Major Malfunction wrote:
digress wrote:Ok, so let's remove the freedom because poor people are liable to use a gun when hungry!

Such a fallacious argument really doesn't bear a reply. Remember, you're playing with the big boys. Play nice, and don't cry if your feelings get hurt.

But since we're playing...

You're a troll.

Maybe...but I think she maybe just a little more like this:
Troll_Doll-full_size.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
I eat without fear of certain Death from The Tree of Knowledge because with wisdom, we may one day break free from its mortal curse.

User avatar
digress
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1692
Joined: Thu May 22, 2014 2:11 am
Custom Title: doomer
Contact:

Re: Guns again...

Postby digress » Sun Jun 15, 2014 8:45 am

Major Malfunction wrote:
digress wrote:Ok, so let's remove the freedom because poor people are liable to use a gun when hungry!

Such a fallacious argument really doesn't bear a reply..


That wasn't my argument. I was simply reiterating your argument, in sarcastic agreement, as representing my own.

Scott Mayers wrote: While you appear to be fair and relatively innocent with regards to others, digress, this isn't just about you here. It is an issue for which those who would prefer to prevent even allowing one the platform to speak after they've finished there own, who pose the threat. "Oops, times up..., sorry we don't have more time for you to speak here; but we've just been told that there is another terrorist lurking in the woods just behind the podium here!"


I'm not sure what you are referencing, but even if Scott Mayers were on my side I would not begin to speak from his p.o.v. I believe I've enough respect to hold you to what you say as your own reasoning just as I'd anticipate you do the same for me. That however was not the case in this thread and I'm continually attacked as representing an argument I never claimed. I'm guilty by association on your account.

Scott Mayers wrote: As for any dictator, the power of those like Kim Jung doesn't seem to have as much power as the rest of the world's ability to sanction them. And besides, I didn't see your most fervent supporters preferring to help "free" these North Koreans. Rather, you'd support those who don't even really want or need your help in the Middle East? And just to help you understand something that gets significantly missed with regards to things like Communism, to those within those countries, they see their "leader" as mostly incarnate Constitutional protectors separate from the process of their regular governments as the Queen of England is to Constitutional Monarchy. I can't argue for the specific forms such as North Korea as we are as much being blocked out from learning the details of their actual regime as they are of ours.


I disagree. Worshiping a written document is not quite the same as worshiping a person. But I don't advocate cult behavior & believe worship is not a necessary practice for anything. That includes arguments and myself. I will however come close to worship in my value system for personal responsibility in a free society. It's more of a preference than worship though. A personal choice, if you will.

But domestic policy is an entirely different issue. Wait, I forgot I'm advocating absolutism here so never mind. All Hail N Korea!
  God is an idea.  

"For now, I am going to err on the side of freedom of speech..." -Pyrrho
"Every instance that has always existed is a piece of evidence that God is not needed." -yrreg
"I am not a concept..." -Confidencia

User avatar
Scott Mayers
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2331
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2012 4:56 pm
Custom Title: Deep

Re: Guns again...

Postby Scott Mayers » Sun Jun 15, 2014 9:04 am

The point is digress is that while you seem only to see how your own intents to be more fair, you are still ignorant of the fact that you represent the vast majority of others too who believe they are as well. But your behavior is that of a bystander to others who are hurt by your own support to neglect the realities of how you oversimplify the right to bear arms as a type of 'natural' fact of life. You ignore how other similar countries, like my own, to have much less violent deaths resulting from guns.

Note that I don't even believe that any particular morality exists other than those we create by our laws. To me, this is about being able to be practical and relatively utilitarian as a function to promote more rather than less comfort all around. But you act as if a gun is simply a natural extension of a human jaw that is needed to help us chew our food better. Your trivialization is only due to how this is normalized in your environment, and you need to step back to try to understand it apart from that bias.
I eat without fear of certain Death from The Tree of Knowledge because with wisdom, we may one day break free from its mortal curse.

User avatar
Major Malfunction
Has No Life
Posts: 11293
Joined: Wed May 10, 2006 6:20 am
Custom Title: Dérailleur Énigmatique

Re: Guns again...

Postby Major Malfunction » Sun Jun 15, 2014 9:12 am

digress wrote:
Major Malfunction wrote:
digress wrote:Ok, so let's remove the freedom because poor people are liable to use a gun when hungry!

Such a fallacious argument really doesn't bear a reply..


That wasn't my argument. I was simply reiterating your argument, in sarcastic agreement, as representing my own.

Perhaps you could reiterate your perception of my argument for us all in greater clarity?

You're the only one talking about banning guns altogether and removing all freedoms, here.

Having a histrionic fainting fit and declaring any restriction is the end of all freedom.

You're wrong. Just admit it and stop whining.

You're not allowed to put blind-folded cows on a highway, for example. Did civilisation end because of that restriction?

No. It probably got just a little bit better for everyone.
This being was produced using the same process as other beings, and therefore, may contain traces of nuts.

User avatar
digress
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1692
Joined: Thu May 22, 2014 2:11 am
Custom Title: doomer
Contact:

Re: Guns again...

Postby digress » Sun Jun 15, 2014 9:29 am

Scott Mayers wrote:The point is digress is that while you seem only to see how your own intents to be more fair, you are still ignorant of the fact that you represent the vast majority of others too who believe they are as well. But your behavior is that of a bystander to others who are hurt by your own support to neglect the realities of how you oversimplify the right to bear arms as a type of 'natural' fact of life. You ignore how other similar countries, like my own, to have much less violent deaths resulting from guns.

Note that I don't even believe that any particular morality exists other than those we create by our laws. To me, this is about being able to be practical and relatively utilitarian as a function to promote more rather than less comfort all around. But you act as if a gun is simply a natural extension of a human jaw that is needed to help us chew our food better. Your trivialization is only due to how this is normalized in your environment, and you need to step back to try to understand it apart from that bias.


How do you get off on saying this and yet I'm the one being portrayed as the troll? I don't think you are a troll, just for the sake of reason, I ask.

Again, you accuse my position of one that's guilty by association because like you say, I'm just as liable as the person manufacturing the bullets. Let alone the person using them! My bystander-ism is not utilitarian so I need to {!#%@} off with my absolute assurance of violence everywhere. You say I have difficulty comprehending your argument. So I am at the mercy of your next reply.

I think guns are a natural technological fact that wont disappear with any law. It's best to promote gun responsibility and let responsible gun owners not take the downfall for quite literally the grossly small psychopathic few in the media.

I also know you don't think morality exists, only law. You were plain about that earlier in stating law does not impact good or bad values on a society, yet wanted to instill a new law banning guns. No, I understand. People are immoral animals and we need to control them somehow! Your immoral nature is creepy on more than one account in this thread.

I also don't act out anything related to guns and don't consider them natural human extensions. I dont own a gun!!! I believe teaching people about the importance of being responsible reflects on why so many kids are depraved enough to walk into their school and blast away their friends. Because we don't talk about morality! In America this may be a very pressing issue since morality is so readily linked to religion and with the breakdown of that thread it's possible people are losing touch with themselves. This is one possibility. No UK or Canadian statistic can relate because US is statistically way more religious!

Benjamin Franklin said, "Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters."

heres James Wilson, "Human law must rest its authority ultimately upon the authority of that law which is divine. . . . Far from being rivals or enemies, religion and law are twin sisters, friends, and mutual assistants. Indeed, these two sciences run into each other."

or George Washington, "Religion and morality are the essential pillars of civil society."

You want to talk about Americans and their pride and ignore basic facts like these? You claim to understand the problem when all you've done is propose restrictions on people!
  God is an idea.  

"For now, I am going to err on the side of freedom of speech..." -Pyrrho
"Every instance that has always existed is a piece of evidence that God is not needed." -yrreg
"I am not a concept..." -Confidencia

User avatar
digress
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1692
Joined: Thu May 22, 2014 2:11 am
Custom Title: doomer
Contact:

Re: Guns again...

Postby digress » Sun Jun 15, 2014 9:36 am

Major Malfunction wrote:
digress wrote: ...
You're the only one talking about banning guns altogether and removing all freedoms, here.

...declaring any restriction is the end of all freedom.


I want Scott Mayers to confirm how true this statement is based on my reasoning in this thread. Is this what I've stated?
  God is an idea.  

"For now, I am going to err on the side of freedom of speech..." -Pyrrho
"Every instance that has always existed is a piece of evidence that God is not needed." -yrreg
"I am not a concept..." -Confidencia

User avatar
Major Malfunction
Has No Life
Posts: 11293
Joined: Wed May 10, 2006 6:20 am
Custom Title: Dérailleur Énigmatique

Re: Guns again...

Postby Major Malfunction » Sun Jun 15, 2014 9:44 am

digress wrote:I think guns are a natural technological fact that wont disappear with any law. It's best to promote gun responsibility and let responsible gun owners not take the downfall for quite literally the grossly small psychopathic few in the media.

So are rocket launchers, anthrax, and nukes.

Do you know of any other countries that allow open carry of weapons? Name them. They're all in Africa or the Middle East, and they're all shitholes.

Is that what you really want for your civilisation?

Because I really do not care, so long as you keep it to yourselves.
This being was produced using the same process as other beings, and therefore, may contain traces of nuts.

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Has No Life
Posts: 19616
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: sees Maria Frigoris from its house!

Re: Guns again...

Postby scrmbldggs » Sun Jun 15, 2014 9:49 am

Major Malfunction wrote:
digress wrote:I think guns are a natural technological fact that wont disappear with any law. It's best to promote gun responsibility and let responsible gun owners not take the downfall for quite literally the grossly small psychopathic few in the media.

So are rocket launchers, anthrax, and nukes.

Do you know of any other countries that allow open carry of weapons? Name them. They're all in Africa or the Middle East, and they're all shitholes.

Is that what you really want for your civilisation?

Because I really do not care, so long as you keep it to yourselves.

I wouldn't say there aren't any shithole areas in the US and I also don't quite know what you mean by "allowing open carry", but it's not like guns appeared just a few years ago?
Hi, Io the lurker.

User avatar
digress
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1692
Joined: Thu May 22, 2014 2:11 am
Custom Title: doomer
Contact:

Re: Guns again...

Postby digress » Sun Jun 15, 2014 9:58 am

Major Malfunction wrote:So ...


I'm sorry but Scott Mayers hasn't had time to reply. You'll have to wait in line because I can't seem to figure out why you'd engage a troll in discussion.
  God is an idea.  

"For now, I am going to err on the side of freedom of speech..." -Pyrrho
"Every instance that has always existed is a piece of evidence that God is not needed." -yrreg
"I am not a concept..." -Confidencia

User avatar
Major Malfunction
Has No Life
Posts: 11293
Joined: Wed May 10, 2006 6:20 am
Custom Title: Dérailleur Énigmatique

Re: Guns again...

Postby Major Malfunction » Sun Jun 15, 2014 10:15 am

You can play pretend, but the facts remain.
This being was produced using the same process as other beings, and therefore, may contain traces of nuts.

User avatar
digress
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1692
Joined: Thu May 22, 2014 2:11 am
Custom Title: doomer
Contact:

Re: Guns again...

Postby digress » Sun Jun 15, 2014 10:20 am

What a strange phenomena... there you go again.
  God is an idea.  

"For now, I am going to err on the side of freedom of speech..." -Pyrrho
"Every instance that has always existed is a piece of evidence that God is not needed." -yrreg
"I am not a concept..." -Confidencia

User avatar
Major Malfunction
Has No Life
Posts: 11293
Joined: Wed May 10, 2006 6:20 am
Custom Title: Dérailleur Énigmatique

Re: Guns again...

Postby Major Malfunction » Sun Jun 15, 2014 10:34 am

Owning a gun increases the chances of you being killed by a gun.

There you go, sweetheart.

It doesn't make you safer. Quite the opposite.

Now count how many people have been murdered, committed suicide, or accidentally killed by guns since the 2nd Amendment, and compare it to how many foreign invaders and tyrannical governments it's managed to see off.
This being was produced using the same process as other beings, and therefore, may contain traces of nuts.

User avatar
kennyc
Has No Life
Posts: 12192
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 11:21 am
Custom Title: The Dank Side of the Moon
Location: Denver, CO

Re: Guns again...

Postby kennyc » Sun Jun 15, 2014 10:36 am

Major Malfunction wrote:Statistically, overall, owning a gun makes you more likely to be killed by a gun than a random, unarmed person just wandering down the street minding his own business.

You can't argue with that. Owning a gun makes you less safe.


Wrong. Lies, damned lies and statistics. Stick your statistics. They've been shown to be wrong in fact it has shown to be exactly the opposite. You can prove whatever you like with cherry picked statistics.
Kenny A. Chaffin
Art Gallery - Photo Gallery - Writing&Poetry - The Bleeding Edge
"Strive on with Awareness" - Siddhartha Gautama

User avatar
kennyc
Has No Life
Posts: 12192
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 11:21 am
Custom Title: The Dank Side of the Moon
Location: Denver, CO

Re: Guns again...

Postby kennyc » Sun Jun 15, 2014 10:40 am

[quote="Scott Mayers"....

You guys are sick and you know it. ////[/quote]


Nope. That's your opinion. You can keep it.
Kenny A. Chaffin
Art Gallery - Photo Gallery - Writing&Poetry - The Bleeding Edge
"Strive on with Awareness" - Siddhartha Gautama

User avatar
kennyc
Has No Life
Posts: 12192
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 11:21 am
Custom Title: The Dank Side of the Moon
Location: Denver, CO

Re: Guns again...

Postby kennyc » Sun Jun 15, 2014 10:42 am

Major Malfunction wrote:You can play pretend, but the facts remain.


:lol: :lol: :lol:

Yes, they certainly do, too bad you don't comprehend them.

Go box a kangaroo or something and leave us alone. It's none of your business. :mrgreen:
Kenny A. Chaffin
Art Gallery - Photo Gallery - Writing&Poetry - The Bleeding Edge
"Strive on with Awareness" - Siddhartha Gautama

User avatar
digress
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1692
Joined: Thu May 22, 2014 2:11 am
Custom Title: doomer
Contact:

Re: Guns again...

Postby digress » Sun Jun 15, 2014 10:49 am

Major Malfunction wrote:and yet the murder rate is much lower in the UK compared to the US. Even accounting for all other potential weapons.

Justify that.

ok
digress wrote:In America this may be a very pressing issue since morality is so readily linked to religion and with the breakdown of that thread it's possible people are losing touch with themselves. This is one possibility. No UK or Canadian statistic can relate because US is statistically way more religious!

now
Major Malfunction wrote: Owning a gun increases the chances of you being killed by a gun.

Major Malfunction wrote: You're the only one talking about banning guns altogether and removing all freedoms, here.


"Major Malfunction"

Major Malfunction wrote:You can play pretend, but the facts remain.

Major Malfunction wrote: You're a troll.
  God is an idea.  

"For now, I am going to err on the side of freedom of speech..." -Pyrrho
"Every instance that has always existed is a piece of evidence that God is not needed." -yrreg
"I am not a concept..." -Confidencia

clarsct
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1429
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2005 10:56 pm
Location: The Cultural Desert

Re: Guns again...

Postby clarsct » Sun Jun 15, 2014 10:49 am

JO:
Ok. If having something, anything around you would make you do something morally questionable, then your morals are questionable.
So what you seem to be saying is that morally questionable people should not own guns.
Great. So...who decides?
What judge is so good as to make that decision? I'm not.
Consider this situation:
Robert's friend Steve asks him for a ride. Robert agrees. Steve shows up with a couple of buddies and asks Robert to drive him to a dry cleaners. Robert does so. They get out, run into the bank next door and rob it. Robert doesn't immediately know this, but he sees them going into the bank. They leave, climb into the car, and tell Robert to step on it. Robert sees guards chasing, and they are armed, so he panics and guns it. He gets stopped and they all get arrested. Robert serves his time, gets out, never, EVER talks to Steve again. He joins a scrapbooking club and meets a woman. Robert and his lady marry, have children, both have good jobs, and are living the American Dream(tm). Should Robert be able to own a gun? He's a good guy that was put in a bad situation. In my state, he would not be able to. But someone with no record who goes off the deep end could.

So who judges? That's the issue. Does the state have the right to assess your moral state? I hold that it does not. The state does not have the moral authority to decide who can own a gun or who cannot. And our Constitution agrees. Freedom means that you will not always be safe. Total safety is the total lack of freedom.
When Religion becomes State, and breaking the Law becomes a Sin, then Dissenters will become Heretics.

User avatar
kennyc
Has No Life
Posts: 12192
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 11:21 am
Custom Title: The Dank Side of the Moon
Location: Denver, CO

Re: Guns again...

Postby kennyc » Sun Jun 15, 2014 11:27 am

Guns don't kill people, religion does......

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/o ... -1.1829711
Kenny A. Chaffin
Art Gallery - Photo Gallery - Writing&Poetry - The Bleeding Edge
"Strive on with Awareness" - Siddhartha Gautama

User avatar
kennyc
Has No Life
Posts: 12192
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 11:21 am
Custom Title: The Dank Side of the Moon
Location: Denver, CO

Re: Guns again...

Postby kennyc » Sun Jun 15, 2014 11:30 am

clarsct wrote:...

So who judges? That's the issue. Does the state have the right to assess your moral state? I hold that it does not. The state does not have the moral authority to decide who can own a gun or who cannot. And our Constitution agrees. Freedom means that you will not always be safe. Total safety is the total lack of freedom.


Yes, this is an issue in all of the recent high-profile shootings. Mental health issues. This is much more the 'problem' than gun ownership rights.
Kenny A. Chaffin
Art Gallery - Photo Gallery - Writing&Poetry - The Bleeding Edge
"Strive on with Awareness" - Siddhartha Gautama

User avatar
Major Malfunction
Has No Life
Posts: 11293
Joined: Wed May 10, 2006 6:20 am
Custom Title: Dérailleur Énigmatique

Re: Guns again...

Postby Major Malfunction » Sun Jun 15, 2014 11:59 am

kennyc wrote:Go box a kangaroo or something and leave us alone. It's none of your business. :mrgreen:

It's our business, because the Yanks can't leave the world well alone.
This being was produced using the same process as other beings, and therefore, may contain traces of nuts.


Return to “Guns”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest