Krush on 14/6/2016 at 21:16
Plus I also find that the people who want to ban all guns (thus leaving the only guns in the hands of police) are also the types who hate police and see them as nothing but jackbooted thugs. How does this not cause a cognitive dissonance?
PLUS, all the left-wing politicians who want to ban guns such as Hillary Clinton or Barbara Boxer - they always have tons of armed guards around them. Ironic eh.
Vivian on 14/6/2016 at 21:19
Quote Posted by Krush
Plus I also find that the people who want to ban all guns (thus leaving the only guns in the hands of
police) are also the types who hate police and see them as nothing but jackbooted thugs.
No I don't?
The thing about waiting for ages outside is weird though, I thought the whole point in having such heavily armed police was that they could get handy in a matter of minutes.
Krush on 14/6/2016 at 21:25
OK well Vivian I was talking about Left-wing groups in the USA such as Occupy or Black Lives Matter.
faetal on 14/6/2016 at 22:32
Quote Posted by bjack
How did you come to that conclusion? Our 2nd amendment does not give us a right to bare arms, it recognizes that congress shall pass no law restricting the ownership and baring of arms.
Wow, I feel that if I said I like to track cars, you may say that I advocate the running over of nuns in the street. :) One cannot simply ban guns in the USA. We have a rule of law (not for long I suspect) and the constitution has very specific rules contained within for amendment. If someone wants to ban all guns, they must pass another amendment to effectively purge the 2nd. For judges to make the entire work moot by fiat is not law - it is tyranny. If they castrate the 2nd through false interpretation, what is to stop them for all other amendments? Or, at least the ones the people in power at the time wish to remove. Oh that trial by jury thing? Does not apply if you used a gun, used a condom, had sex with the same sex, ate and apple, mixed meat and dairy, etc. How about the freedom to assemble. Maybe a stacked supreme court decides no more than 3 people may assemble at a time without a permit. Can’t happen? Just wait.
So you all need guns because it's the lynchpin holding the constitution together?
Seriously, you're using a slippery slope fallacy. Not much of a nation if you're tied in to a cycle of mass killing because of not being able to edit specific wording in a paragraph somewhere.
faetal on 14/6/2016 at 22:35
Quote Posted by Krush
Plus I also find that the people who want to ban all guns (thus leaving the only guns in the hands of
police) are also the types who hate police and see them as nothing but jackbooted thugs. How does this not cause a cognitive dissonance?
Because of something called nuance. Not wanting people armed who aren't accountable to a democratic state
while not wanting those actors of the state to
act like thugs.
The nuance being that it's possible to have real concerns about
some police being the kind of people who ought not to have that power while still preferring only the police having that power to every asshole with sentience having it.
It's the lesser of two evils. Also, I'd say it's highly likely that the police would get away with a LOT less in an unarmed society since the threshold for defining reasonable force would be far higher than "he moved funny".
bjack on 14/6/2016 at 23:12
Quote Posted by faetal
So you all need guns because it's the lynchpin holding the constitution together?
Seriously, you're using a slippery slope fallacy. Not much of a nation if you're tied in to a cycle of mass killing because of not being able to edit specific wording in a paragraph somewhere.
It is not a fallacy. It is a tactic used by the left (and right. mind you) to slowly chip away at all freedoms. It started with smoking. Now legal adults at 18 years old, that are allowed to own guns BTW, are not allowed to smoke tobacco, OR (OMG this is a laugh riot!) use vaporizers. A 19 year old can buy a shot gun, sign contracts, sign his life away to debt, get married, and join the military, but does not have the mental capacity to use a strawberry flavored vape? The non-nicotine vapes are illegal for them too. Asinine!
You are completely oblivious to the tactics in the country. I do not expect you to understand nor believe it. Your bias is believing all "slippery slope" arguments are all fallacies. Yes, in many cases it is true that they are. But, there are exceptions, especially currently. The left loves to use the big lie and this is a whopper. They couldn't illegalize tobacco overnight. It took decades. It's still legal for 21 and over, but not for long. You are not allowed to smoke in public, your car, you apartment, parks, etc. Where then?
The same thing is happening with guns. It is also happening with the pussy snowflake asshole fascist safespacer anti-free speech movement. It is also happening to what we are allowed to eat. What our "correct" weight should be, etc. Whatever... You come from the left, so you welcome these intrusions. I can hear you laughing... :joke:
Both the left and right know they cannot make things illegal overnight. They much incrementally chip away until there is nothing left standing. Be it gun control, free speech, abortion, you name it.
It is the slippery slope. It is what I have observed for nearly 5 decades. And it is in fact happening.
faetal on 14/6/2016 at 23:44
No, it's not bias, I'm incredulous that you think that gun control can only be the beginning of a complete stripping of freedoms and not a specific action to curb excessive deaths and bring your country closer to the same basic standard as most civilised ones.
The fact that you can't tell me why this is without throwing around words like left / fascist etc is pretty telling. I don't "come from the left" - the whole left vs right dichotomy is a debating tactic for those who lack the intellectual acuity to go at it properly. There is no "Big Left Manifesto" that I signed, I simply (along with most of the rest of the world) find it insane how it's almost exclusively people within the US, don't seem to think there is a gun problem there.
As per usual, I'm just going to stop responding to you if you can't debate like a grown up - your name-calling and reliance on lazy categories is dull.
bjack on 15/6/2016 at 01:36
Quote Posted by faetal
No, it's not bias, I'm incredulous that you think that gun control can
only be the beginning of a complete stripping of freedoms and not a specific action to curb excessive deaths and bring your country closer to the same basic standard as most civilised ones.
The fact that you can't tell me why this is without throwing around words like left / fascist etc is pretty telling. I don't "come from the left" - the whole left vs right dichotomy is a debating tactic for those who lack the intellectual acuity to go at it properly. There is no "Big Left Manifesto" that I signed, I simply (along with most of the rest of the world) find it insane how it's almost exclusively people within the US, don't seem to think there is a gun problem there.
As per usual, I'm just going to stop responding to you if you can't debate like a grown up - your name-calling and reliance on lazy categories is dull.
You seem to have not read a word I have written, other than what your bias picks and chooses as what to deal with. I am not against some forms of gun control. I am against extreme gun control that is ineffective and does nothing other than to inhibit law abiding citizens of their rights. Yes there is a big left manifesto. It is called Das Kapital. Maybe you have read it nightly? Ha ha :joke: A joke, if you can take one.
You throw a fit when you are challenged in ways you cannot deal with, so you sulk in the corner. You have called me more names than I can count, yet you use this as a slight against me? Mwah ha ha ha ha ha. This is grown up talk. How about you open your mind a little, just a little beyond your extreme leftist indoctrination you got in the “we don't need no education” schools in the UK, then the “you must tow the line to get funding, or else!” bias that researchers face.
It seems to me that whenever anyone has a point against your bias, you turn into a little bitch. A female dog, if you prefer, as to not upset the super snowflake assholes out there. Again, love and kisses.
And why are you getting so fucked up about what I am saying anyway? I mean really, are you that unsettled about your position that some old fart like me makes you get all pissy in the pants? Come on. You are smarter than that. You are an accomplished scientist. I mean that last statement with no ill will or rancor. You are a scientist. In this particular bent, I may not agree with all of what you are saying, but I do agree with some. You seem to think I am 100% guns or death. You can't be more wrong. Read and re-read. Try to understand. Maybe it is because you are so young and you have nothing but newspeak as your guide. Maybe you can't understand the principles. Or maybe you cannot understand non-linear thinking and prose. Maybe that is the problem. I don't know. Maybe one day you will be cured and can walk that golden road to room 101. :thumb:
TheDarkOne93 on 15/6/2016 at 02:03
Quote Posted by bjack
How did you come to that conclusion? Our 2nd amendment does not give us a right to bare arms, it recognizes that congress shall pass no law restricting the ownership and baring of arms.
Wow, I feel that if I said I like to track cars, you may say that I advocate the running over of nuns in the street. :) One cannot simply ban guns in the USA. We have a rule of law (not for long I suspect) and the constitution has very specific rules contained within for amendment. If someone wants to ban all guns, they must pass another amendment to effectively purge the 2nd. For judges to make the entire work moot by fiat is not law - it is tyranny. If they castrate the 2nd through false interpretation, what is to stop them for all other amendments? Or, at least the ones the people in power at the time wish to remove. Oh that trial by jury thing? Does not apply if you used a gun, used a condom, had sex with the same sex, ate and apple, mixed meat and dairy, etc. How about the freedom to assemble. Maybe a stacked supreme court decides no more than 3 people may assemble at a time without a permit. Can’t happen? Just wait.
That is right on point my good sir. What freedoms will we have left if we let the government creates arbituary laws that are in violation of supreme law? If they continue to go unchallenged, then freedoms will only become priviledges that the government can regulate at will.
bjack on 15/6/2016 at 02:22
Quote Posted by TheDarkOne93
That is right on point my good sir. What freedoms will we have left if we let the government creates arbituary laws that are in violation of supreme law? If they continue to go unchallenged, then freedoms will only become priviledges that the government can regulate at will.
Yes.
