Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

A firearm question for you LeftiesFollow

#902 Feb 16 2013 at 6:36 PM Rating: Decent
******
21,717 posts
Spoonless wrote:
Any thread you post in is an abortion.

Don't you mean abomination?
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#903 Feb 17 2013 at 6:57 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,023 posts
I haven't won EVERY abortion thread, you give me too much credit.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#904 Feb 17 2013 at 7:12 AM Rating: Excellent
Unforkgettable
*****
13,251 posts
BrownDuck wrote:
Spoonless wrote:
Any thread you post in is an abortion.

Don't you mean abomination?
I mean he's analogous to a bent coat hanger.
____________________________
Banh
#905 Feb 17 2013 at 8:02 AM Rating: Good
******
27,272 posts
Almalieque wrote:
I haven't won EVERY abortion thread, you give me too much credit.
The only thing that happens in threads you "contribute" to is that everybody loses.
____________________________
Theophany wrote:
YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU.
someproteinguy wrote:
Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist.
Astarin wrote:
One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.
#906 Feb 18 2013 at 7:51 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,078 posts
Almalieque wrote:
I haven't won EVERY abortion thread....

Bad call by the refs?
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#907 Feb 18 2013 at 8:34 AM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
9,023 posts
Elinda wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
I haven't won EVERY abortion thread....

Bad call by the refs?


They do as they're paid to do Smiley: sly
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#908 Feb 18 2013 at 10:22 AM Rating: Good
****
6,470 posts
Elinda wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
I haven't won EVERY abortion thread....

Bad call by the refs?


Perhaps it was during that awkward season when we had the replacement mods.
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#909 Feb 19 2013 at 8:39 AM Rating: Excellent
******
44,019 posts
They make the bad calls to make the real mods look good. Conspiracy scam liberal etc etc.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#910 Feb 21 2013 at 8:15 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,767 posts
Was super busy this week, so picking this up (and cause I'm bored):

Smasharoo wrote:
Is this different than how we treat anything else? We treat cars and trucks the same except for the times when they're not the same, right? I mean, this is a concept we employ all the time in every other facet of our lives, but you can't noodle it out in this one case? Seem somewhat pointless to insist that we can't compare the common aspects of two things unless those two things are absolutely identical in every way.

Yes, an enfranchised right of citizenship and deadly physical object, nearly identical.


Given that ownership of the deadly physical object *is* an enfranchised right of citizenship (enumerated even!), aren't you making my case for me?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#911 Feb 22 2013 at 10:18 AM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
29,436 posts
Given that ownership of the deadly physical object *is* an enfranchised right of citizenship (enumerated even!), aren't you making my case for me?

No. Do you really not see why? Hard to believe you'd even pretend to be that rock fucking stupid, but if you insist, I guess we'll go with it.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#912 Feb 22 2013 at 1:26 PM Rating: Good
Smasharoo wrote:
Given that ownership of the deadly physical object *is* an enfranchised right of citizenship (enumerated even!), aren't you making my case for me?

No. Do you really not see why? Hard to believe you'd even pretend to be that rock fucking stupid, but if you insist, I guess we'll go with it.


****, I'm blind and even I saw what you were getting at.


Stoopid double quotes.Smiley: glare


Edited, Feb 22nd 2013 5:24pm by Bijou
____________________________
Allegory wrote:
Bijou your art is exceptionally creepy. It seems like their should be something menacing about it, yet no such tone is present.
#913 Feb 22 2013 at 1:31 PM Rating: Excellent
***
2,010 posts
I wouldn't worry about it. He's just trying to find multiple ways to work enumerated into his posts. I don't believe he even knows what it means.
#914 Feb 22 2013 at 10:56 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
2,592 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
Given that ownership of the deadly physical object *is* an enfranchised right of citizenship (enumerated even!), aren't you making my case for me?

No. Do you really not see why? Hard to believe you'd even pretend to be that rock fucking stupid, but if you insist, I guess we'll go with it.


Of course, it's obvious!!! Surely you know that... Obviously you must understand... etc, etc
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#915 Feb 25 2013 at 5:31 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,767 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
Given that ownership of the deadly physical object *is* an enfranchised right of citizenship (enumerated even!), aren't you making my case for me?

No. Do you really not see why?


No. I honestly do not. Could you please spell out for me how owning a firearm (which is an enumerated right) and voting (which you call an "enfranchised right of citizenship") are not similar at the very least by the fact that both are rights? That one consists of "ownership of a deadly physical object" is irrelevant since that's precisely what the 2nd amendment right is about.

I'll note (again) that I did not say they were identical, or even "nearly identical". I said that they were similar in one specific way and have restricted my comparison of the two to that aspect.

Edited, Feb 25th 2013 3:32pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#916 Feb 25 2013 at 6:43 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,023 posts
gbaji wrote:
Smasharoo wrote:
Given that ownership of the deadly physical object *is* an enfranchised right of citizenship (enumerated even!), aren't you making my case for me?

No. Do you really not see why?


No. I honestly do not. Could you please spell out for me how owning a firearm (which is an enumerated right) and voting (which you call an "enfranchised right of citizenship") are not similar at the very least by the fact that both are rights? That one consists of "ownership of a deadly physical object" is irrelevant since that's precisely what the 2nd amendment right is about.

I'll note (again) that I did not say they were identical, or even "nearly identical". I said that they were similar in one specific way and have restricted my comparison of the two to that aspect.

Edited, Feb 25th 2013 3:32pm by gbaji


And that "One specific way" is irreverent to the discussion if you do not believe that they are even at least "nearly identical". Why make a comparison of something that isn't in the least bit identical? What exactly was your motive?
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#917 Feb 25 2013 at 6:50 PM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,078 posts
gbaji wrote:
Smasharoo wrote:
Given that ownership of the deadly physical object *is* an enfranchised right of citizenship (enumerated even!), aren't you making my case for me?

No. Do you really not see why?


No. I honestly do not. Could you please spell out for me how owning a firearm (which is an enumerated right) and voting (which you call an "enfranchised right of citizenship") are not similar at the very least by the fact that both are rights? That one consists of "ownership of a deadly physical object" is irrelevant since that's precisely what the 2nd amendment right is about.

I'll note (again) that I did not say they were identical, or even "nearly identical". I said that they were similar in one specific way and have restricted my comparison of the two to that aspect.

Edited, Feb 25th 2013 3:32pm by gbaji

Ok, so they're both rights (I'd not give that kind of power to the second amendment but just lets say). Now what?
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#918 Feb 25 2013 at 7:00 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,767 posts
Elinda wrote:
Ok, so they're both rights (I'd not give that kind of power to the second amendment but just lets say). Now what?


Both also represent empowerment of the individual. Both can be used as a tool to determine the outcome of a contest over leadership of a nation.

In a society where the next leader is determined by all the people forming into factions and fighting it out, isn't disarming the public similar to taking away the right to vote in a society where we vote to determine the next leader? Similarly, if we were to say disarm just some of the people, wouldn't that be similar to taking away the vote for some of the people? That's the analogy I was making.

They're not identical, but in this context, they do perform similar functions. Disarm the public in the first case and they have no say over who leads them (the faction who gains control of the military would I suppose, which btw we do see happen on occasion). Take the vote away from the public, and the same happens in a democracy (those with the right political connections, favors, whatever, will rise to power). Again, not identical, but definitely analogous.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#919 Feb 25 2013 at 7:30 PM Rating: Excellent
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,078 posts
gbaji wrote:
Elinda wrote:
Ok, so they're both rights (I'd not give that kind of power to the second amendment but just lets say). Now what?


Both also represent empowerment of the individual. Both can be used as a tool to determine the outcome of a contest over leadership of a nation.

In a society where the next leader is determined by all the people forming into factions and fighting it out, isn't disarming the public similar to taking away the right to vote in a society where we vote to determine the next leader? Similarly, if we were to say disarm just some of the people, wouldn't that be similar to taking away the vote for some of the people? That's the analogy I was making.

They're not identical, but in this context, they do perform similar functions. Disarm the public in the first case and they have no say over who leads them (the faction who gains control of the military would I suppose, which btw we do see happen on occasion). Take the vote away from the public, and the same happens in a democracy (those with the right political connections, favors, whatever, will rise to power). Again, not identical, but definitely analogous.

It would seem we made the case for using the vote as our tool to govern rather than the gun way back when we started the country. I think that was a wise choice. Do you want to change the system now?

Seems to me under the current constitution a vote has far more 'right' than a gun - even weighing in the silly 2nd amendment. You can't really believe that we're allowed to own guns so we can defend ourselves from our tyrannical government? Our vote is what stands between us and a non democratic way of life - not guns. There's no equality when one person has a gun and the other doesn't. Guns (as weapons) provide power that is antithetical to the vote.

Besides as you so stubbornly refuse to acknowledge you're talking in metaphor. A gun is a tangible thing - a dangerous thing - unlike a vote. We restrict and track dangerous things. That makes the two 'rights' different enough to be incomparable in any useful sense.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#920 Feb 25 2013 at 7:33 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,767 posts
Almalieque wrote:
And that "One specific way" is irreverent to the discussion if you do not believe that they are even at least "nearly identical".


First off, the word you were looking for is "irrelevant". And no, analogies do not have to be identical to work. They only need to share a property that represents a similar relationship. So Dog is to Animal as Car is to Vehicle. This is the kind of thing most grade school kids can noodle out without much difficulty, but apparently it takes a special kind of idiot to insist that since Dogs aren't identical to Cars, that the relationship between dogs and animals can't be similar to that between cars and vehicles.

Quote:
Why make a comparison of something that isn't in the least bit identical? What exactly was your motive?


Because I can make comparisons of things that aren't identical and show that in some ways they are "similar'? Why is that wrong? I clearly stated at great length the point I was making with the comparison and therefore the context of said comparison. You're free to go read the dozen or so posts which should explain this to you if you're confused.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#921 Feb 25 2013 at 7:50 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,767 posts
Elinda wrote:
It would seem we made the case for using the vote as our tool to govern rather than the gun way back when we started the country. I think that was a wise choice. Do you want to change the system now?


Of course not. I'm suggesting that absent an armed populace which *could* choose to vote with their guns rather than by writing on scraps of paper, the power of writing on scraps of paper can be eliminated without any means to prevent it (except for writing on yet more scraps of paper, which I hope you can see might be problematic in this scenario).

Quote:
Seems to me under the current constitution a vote has far more 'right' than a gun - even weighing in the silly 2nd amendment.


Quick aside: This kind of language is why pro-gun rights folks don't believe when people insist that they have no intention to eliminate/weaken the 2nd amendment, they just want to <insert regulation of the moment>. Just saying.

Quote:
You can't really believe that we're allowed to own guns so we can defend ourselves from our tyrannical government?


Sigh. That's precisely why the 2nd amendment exists.


Quote:
Our vote is what stands between us and a non democratic way of life - not guns.


How can your vote stand between you and a non democratic way of life? Seriously. Stop and think about that. Voting is an outgrowth of a democratic system of government, but voting does not cause democracy to exist, nor does it prevent it from failing to exist. You can't vote your way out of dictatorship, nor will voting prevent a dictator from taking power. You're foolish to think so.

Quote:
There's no equality when one person has a gun and the other doesn't.


In a democracy, there's no equality when one person has a vote and the other doesn't. Funny how that works.

Quote:
Guns (as weapons) provide power that is antithetical to the vote.


Guns empower those who own them. In a free society, where everyone is allowed to own them, then that power is spread evenly. In a society where only some are allowed to own them (like say the police or military), then that power is spread unevenly. Similarly, in a society where everyone is allowed to vote, the power of voting is spread evenly, while one in which only some are allowed to vote, it is not. Do I need to continue with the analogy, or is this sufficient to make my point?

As long as you and I are both free to own guns then we're both equal. That you may choose not to while I do is no different than me choosing to vote while you choose not to.

Quote:
Besides as you so stubbornly refuse to acknowledge you're talking in metaphor. A gun is a tangible thing - a dangerous thing - unlike a vote. We restrict and track dangerous things. That makes the two 'rights' different enough to be incomparable in any useful sense.


Yes. Which means a gun is still useful and dangerous and powerful even if the government should choose to ignore the results of a vote. They are different in that way. Um... But that's part of the point here, guns still work as a means of the people keeping their government honest in cases where votes do not. Think of it as a safety net for democracy. We don't want to have to use it, but if we should find ourselves in a situation where our votes cease to matter, we've not put all our eggs in that one ineffectual basket.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#922 Feb 25 2013 at 7:56 PM Rating: Excellent
Cervixhouse-Five
******
30,643 posts
I knew gbaji wasn't the brightest bulb in the bunch, but I'm a little surprised that he actually thinks that owning a gun will keep the government in line. Or that he'll at least pretend to believe it.

There is simply no way that the firearms available to the public are going to in any way save your *** from a government that has nuclear weapons and unmanned drones.
#923 Feb 25 2013 at 8:16 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
In a society where the next leader is determined by all the people forming into factions and fighting it out, isn't disarming the public similar to taking away the right to vote in a society where we vote to determine the next leader?

No.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#924 Feb 25 2013 at 8:22 PM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,078 posts
gbaji wrote:

Sigh. That's precisely why the 2nd amendment exists.
That's ridiculous. If our government becomes tyrannical all pending rules are null and void and then the tyrannical government is free to take your gun.


Quote:
How can your vote stand between you and a non democratic way of life? Seriously. Stop and think about that. Voting is an outgrowth of a democratic system of government, but voting does not cause democracy to exist, nor does it prevent it from failing to exist. You can't vote your way out of dictatorship, nor will voting prevent a dictator from taking power. You're foolish to think so.
You stop and think. That's exactly what is does. We agree to settle our differences, elect our lawmakers, spend an inordinate amount of time and energy adjudicating and enforcing our laws by reason - reason, not guns. You think everyone having the right to own guns trumps that. You think that because you're allowed to own a gun by some stupid 2nd amendment loophole that you can play vigilante, raise a posse, saddle up and go after the tyrannical sheriff that fucked your cow? You have the right to own a gun or a club or a crossbow or a frying pan or a noose. You don't have the right to use any of those weapons to exact your will on others. That makes the 2nd amendment stuff kind of useless. And we're left with guns. Just another object of fascination and carnage.

You're a fool.

Go shut up now. you're so stupid. You'll argue the most stupid stuff just to keep arguing.



Edited, Feb 26th 2013 3:23am by Elinda
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#925 Feb 25 2013 at 8:52 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,767 posts
Belkira wrote:
I knew gbaji wasn't the brightest bulb in the bunch, but I'm a little surprised that he actually thinks that owning a gun will keep the government in line. Or that he'll at least pretend to believe it.


I'm a little surprised that people continue to think this is a good counter argument. Me owning a gun? No. 50 million people owning guns? Yes.

Quote:
There is simply no way that the firearms available to the public are going to in any way save your *** from a government that has nuclear weapons and unmanned drones.


Where exactly are they going to be firing those nuclear weapons and unarmed drones? Let's remember to assume that this is some kind of coup in which the dictator to be actually wants to have a country to rule when all is done. I'm honestly curious why kind of scenario you think is going to go down in which the kinds of arms currently owned by private citizens all over the US would not create a massive hindrance to some would be dictator attempting to take complete control. There are far more scenarios where current privately owned firearms would make this nearly impossible for him to succeed than there are where those weapons would have no effect at all.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#926 Feb 25 2013 at 8:59 PM Rating: Excellent
Cervixhouse-Five
******
30,643 posts
gbaji wrote:
Belkira wrote:
I knew gbaji wasn't the brightest bulb in the bunch, but I'm a little surprised that he actually thinks that owning a gun will keep the government in line. Or that he'll at least pretend to believe it.


I'm a little surprised that people continue to think this is a good counter argument. Me owning a gun? No. 50 million people owning guns? Yes.

Quote:
There is simply no way that the firearms available to the public are going to in any way save your *** from a government that has nuclear weapons and unmanned drones.


Where exactly are they going to be firing those nuclear weapons and unarmed drones? Let's remember to assume that this is some kind of coup in which the dictator to be actually wants to have a country to rule when all is done. I'm honestly curious why kind of scenario you think is going to go down in which the kinds of arms currently owned by private citizens all over the US would not create a massive hindrance to some would be dictator attempting to take complete control. There are far more scenarios where current privately owned firearms would make this nearly impossible for him to succeed than there are where those weapons would have no effect at all.


It is somewhat amazing to me that you have swallowed this line. Even without nuclear weapons and drones, the government has FAR superior manpower and guns. They are going to be aiming at the moron who thinks his handgun is going to do diddly squat to a marine.
#927 Feb 25 2013 at 9:02 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,767 posts
Elinda wrote:
gbaji wrote:

Sigh. That's precisely why the 2nd amendment exists.
That's ridiculous. If our government becomes tyrannical all pending rules are null and void and then the tyrannical government is free to take your gun.


Huh? They're free to ignore your vote. They are not free to take your gun. They have to actually take it. You know, by force. What do you think would happen? The government would just say "Ok. We're disbanding congress and all state authorities and moving our troops in to maintain order. Now everyone just hand over your guns as part of this peaceful process" and folks would all just go along?

Um... And at the risk of stating the obvious, wouldn't that be a lot harder to do if they didn't have a nice list of everyone who owned a gun?


Quote:
Quote:
How can your vote stand between you and a non democratic way of life? Seriously. Stop and think about that. Voting is an outgrowth of a democratic system of government, but voting does not cause democracy to exist, nor does it prevent it from failing to exist. You can't vote your way out of dictatorship, nor will voting prevent a dictator from taking power. You're foolish to think so.
You stop and think. That's exactly what is does. We agree to settle our differences, elect our lawmakers, spend an inordinate amount of time and energy adjudicating and enforcing our laws by reason - reason, not guns.


Yes. And that works only so long as everyone agrees to abide by the results of election and be bound by the same rules. Those things work once you are in a democracy. They do not cause democracy to exist, nor protect it from being destroyed. You are foolish to think so.

Quote:
You think everyone having the right to own guns trumps that.


I think that everyone having the right to own guns ensures that sufficient people will own guns such that it would be very very difficult for any one person or group to just take control and take away all of the rest of our rights. One can argue that the right to own guns is what protects the rest of our rights. Take that one away and the only thing protecting the rest of them is politeness.

Quote:
You think that because you're allowed to own a gun by some stupid 2nd amendment loophole that you can play vigilante, raise a posse, saddle up and go after the tyrannical sheriff that fucked your cow? You have the right to own a gun or a club or a crossbow or a frying pan or a noose. You don't have the right to use any of those weapons to exact your will on others. That makes the 2nd amendment stuff kind of useless.


The folks who wrote the constitution disagree with you. So perhaps you're missing something?

Let me point out again that referring to the right to own a gun as a "stupid 2nd amendment loophole" also grossly undermines the claim of any level of reasonableness on your part.


Quote:
Go shut up now. you're so stupid. You'll argue the most stupid stuff just to keep arguing.


Arguing that the 2nd amendment of our constitution is important is "stupid"? Really?


Fortunately for you, you are not required to understand how the 2nd amendment protects your rights and freedoms for it to do so. Unfortunately if sufficient numbers of people do come to think like you do, then they may just be dumb enough to vote away that very protection. Which would be both sad and ironic.

Edited, Feb 25th 2013 7:21pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#928 Feb 25 2013 at 9:18 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,767 posts
Belkira wrote:
It is somewhat amazing to me that you have swallowed this line. Even without nuclear weapons and drones, the government has FAR superior manpower and guns.


Does it? I suspect you don't really understand how this applies to a domestic conflict.

Quote:
They are going to be aiming at the moron who thinks his handgun is going to do diddly squat to a marine.


Good thing we didn't foolishly outlaw AR-15s with high capacity rounds then. Phew!

And you're also missing which folks would be on which side. If the numbers opposed to whatever form of takeover we're talking about are so low that they preclude elements/members of the military from fighting against the new regime, then you wouldn't have any real opposition by the public either. I can't envision any scenario in which any significant portion of private gun owners would rise up to fight against a tyrannical government, but no part of the military would join them. Can you? I can envision a smaller portion of the military taking control and attempting to lock out all but their faction from controlling the heavier hardware. But this scenario is massively helped along if folks aren't allowed to privately own weapons. That's why private ownership is important. The thousands of armed off duty or retired marines living in my town at any given time don't need to have direct ownership of tanks and helicopters to be able to take out the small number of supporters of some coup who are holding the armories in the area, then take those weapons and fight against the coup.


You really have no concept of how such wars are actually fought. It's not about using privately owned weapons to fight directly against the best the military has. That's a ridiculously simple minded way of looking at it.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#929 Feb 25 2013 at 9:22 PM Rating: Good
******
44,019 posts
gbaji wrote:
I can't envision any scenario in which any significant portion of private gun owners would rise up to fight against a tyrannical government, but no part of the military would join them. Can you?
And they'd use their own, privately owned weapons and not steal the ones from the military on their way out! Oh wait, guess that was yet another bad example from gbaji about private gun ownership.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#930 Feb 25 2013 at 9:38 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Hang on. Gbaji is going to ABSOLUTELY SPECULATE on how his Red Dawn style conservative wet dream would go and pass it off as fact.

Edited, Feb 25th 2013 9:38pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#931 Feb 25 2013 at 9:45 PM Rating: Good
******
44,019 posts
Original or remake?
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#932 Feb 25 2013 at 10:11 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
You're dead to me Smiley: disappointed
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#933 Feb 25 2013 at 10:36 PM Rating: Good
******
44,019 posts
Well excuse me for not knowing which scary foreigners the extreme right is telling us to be afraid of this week. Smiley: bah
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#934 Feb 25 2013 at 11:15 PM Rating: Good
Tracer Bullet
*****
12,578 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Well excuse me for not knowing which scary foreigners the extreme right is telling us to be afraid of this week. Smiley: bah

The foreigners can't be that scary if five high school kids can defeat their army. (Although perhaps this makes a good case for arming school kids, after all.)

____________________________
Na Zdrowie
#935 Feb 26 2013 at 6:00 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
12,005 posts
Quote:
Um... And at the risk of stating the obvious, wouldn't that be a lot harder to do if they didn't have a nice list of everyone who owned a gun?


Ok, let me state this as succinctly as I can. The US Gov't already has those lists. This story is about making those lists a matter of public record. This isn't a totalitarian power grab, it's a transparency/privacy thing. Try arguing for or against this thing that it actually is.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#936 Feb 26 2013 at 6:22 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,023 posts
gbaji wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
And that "One specific way" is irreverent to the discussion if you do not believe that they are even at least "nearly identical".


First off, the word you were looking for is "irrelevant". And no, analogies do not have to be identical to work. They only need to share a property that represents a similar relationship. So Dog is to Animal as Car is to Vehicle. This is the kind of thing most grade school kids can noodle out without much difficulty, but apparently it takes a special kind of idiot to insist that since Dogs aren't identical to Cars, that the relationship between dogs and animals can't be similar to that between cars and vehicles.

Quote:
Why make a comparison of something that isn't in the least bit identical? What exactly was your motive?


Because I can make comparisons of things that aren't identical and show that in some ways they are "similar'? Why is that wrong? I clearly stated at great length the point I was making with the comparison and therefore the context of said comparison. You're free to go read the dozen or so posts which should explain this to you if you're confused.


I know how comparisons work, but if the similarity in question is trivial, then it doesn't add anything to the argument.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#937 Feb 26 2013 at 6:30 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,078 posts
gbaji wrote:



You really have no concept of how such wars are actually fought. It's not about using privately owned weapons to fight directly against the best the military has. That's a ridiculously simple minded way of looking at it.
Smiley: lol And you do?

You really have no concept of reality or what it means to, you know, live in a democratic society with other people under the rule of law. The 2nd amendment doesn't give any private individual some weirdo undefined right to rise above the very laws that hold us all in check.

Reality check time little buddy.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#938 Feb 26 2013 at 6:50 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
12,005 posts
Elinda wrote:
gbaji wrote:



You really have no concept of how such wars are actually fought. It's not about using privately owned weapons to fight directly against the best the military has. That's a ridiculously simple minded way of looking at it.
Smiley: lol And you do?

You really have no concept of reality or what it means to, you know, live in a democratic society with other people under the rule of law. The 2nd amendment doesn't give any private individual some weirdo undefined right to rise above the very laws that hold us all in check.

Reality check time little buddy.


Well, not any one individual, but a large enough faction, and more specifically a majority? Yes. The whole democracy business just offers a less bloody way for those factions to make changes.

Quote:
Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#939 Feb 26 2013 at 7:50 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,078 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
Elinda wrote:
gbaji wrote:



You really have no concept of how such wars are actually fought. It's not about using privately owned weapons to fight directly against the best the military has. That's a ridiculously simple minded way of looking at it.
Smiley: lol And you do?

You really have no concept of reality or what it means to, you know, live in a democratic society with other people under the rule of law. The 2nd amendment doesn't give any private individual some weirdo undefined right to rise above the very laws that hold us all in check.

Reality check time little buddy.


Well, not any one individual, but a large enough faction, and more specifically a majority? Yes. The whole democracy business just offers a less bloody way for those factions to make changes.


If our government becomes so ill-equipped to govern us the then the constitution becomes just a worthless old conglomeration of nicely arranged words.





____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#940 Feb 26 2013 at 8:45 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
12,005 posts
Elinda wrote:
Timelordwho wrote:
Elinda wrote:
gbaji wrote:



You really have no concept of how such wars are actually fought. It's not about using privately owned weapons to fight directly against the best the military has. That's a ridiculously simple minded way of looking at it.
Smiley: lol And you do?

You really have no concept of reality or what it means to, you know, live in a democratic society with other people under the rule of law. The 2nd amendment doesn't give any private individual some weirdo undefined right to rise above the very laws that hold us all in check.

Reality check time little buddy.


Well, not any one individual, but a large enough faction, and more specifically a majority? Yes. The whole democracy business just offers a less bloody way for those factions to make changes.


If our government becomes so ill-equipped to govern us the then the constitution becomes just a worthless old conglomeration of nicely arranged words.


Thank you for repeating exactly what I just said.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#941 Feb 26 2013 at 9:19 AM Rating: Good
******
44,019 posts
trickybeck wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
Well excuse me for not knowing which scary foreigners the extreme right is telling us to be afraid of this week. Smiley: bah
The foreigners can't be that scary if five high school kids can defeat their army. (Although perhaps this makes a good case for arming school kids, after all.)
I still want to know why Russia sent Spetsnatz to Colorado of all places when a couple of bears on unicycles could have probably gotten the job done. Then again, a handful of high school kids did beat those Spetsnatz, so it kind of makes me question just how effective they are anyway ...
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#942 Feb 26 2013 at 9:26 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,078 posts
Timelordwho wrote:


Thank you for repeating exactly what I just said.

Yeah I can see where my words look exactly like yours - except that one typo.














____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#943 Feb 26 2013 at 4:40 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,767 posts
Elinda wrote:
Timelordwho wrote:
Well, not any one individual, but a large enough faction, and more specifically a majority? Yes. The whole democracy business just offers a less bloody way for those factions to make changes.


If our government becomes so ill-equipped to govern us the then the constitution becomes just a worthless old conglomeration of nicely arranged words.


You're missing the point though. Until that time, having a constitution which allows for private gun ownership helps ensure that when/if such a collapse of our democracy should occur, the population is sufficiently capable of defending itself against said tyrannical replacement. Additionally, because this potential is present, it reduces the odds of such a thing happening in the first place. No one's going to try a top down power grab because they'd suddenly find themselves opposed by tens of millions of armed citizens not too happy with them doing so. It helps ensure that the only way to take and hold power is via means that the people find to be legitimate.

And that's a good thing all by itself. But that's not all. The founders were also concerned about the more direct and local forms of oppression. They realized that a disarmed public would be dependent on the government forces to protect them, not just from armies of enemies (whether foreign or domestic) but from smaller threats as well, like thieves, brigands, and whatnot. And we see this effect all the time. Citizens disarming themselves because they've been taught that "guns are bad", and then complaining when the police can't protect them and their property (cause, well, they can't really), sometimes followed up with demands for more police power and authority. And instead of realizing that nothing short of a brutally oppressive police force involving terrible infringements of all our rights could possibly protect us from crime ahead of time and that the best method is to empower themselves to protect their own selves and property, they clamor for more protection and to eliminate guns as though they are the enemy here.

We've just somehow lost sight of why the 2nd amendment exists and have (some of us) gone in the exact opposite direction. But as with many solutions to problems, there is no perfect one, just some that are better than others. And relatively loose private firearm ownership, while not perfect, is a better solution to the problem of crime and violence than heavily restricting them and relying on police forces to protect us. Because the only way they can protect us from crime (as opposed to investigating after the fact) is to employ stringent restrictions on all our activities in order to make it harder for the bad guys to do bad things. Again, I just think that's counter to a free society and *not* the direction we should be going.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#944 Feb 26 2013 at 4:52 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,900 posts
The **** was that? Smiley: dubious

Think you forgot to put your shiny hat on.

Edited, Feb 26th 2013 3:00pm by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#945 Feb 26 2013 at 4:56 PM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,078 posts
gbaji you stay here and guard our stuff when the government collapses. I'm going to Canada.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#946 Feb 26 2013 at 6:17 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,767 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
Quote:
Um... And at the risk of stating the obvious, wouldn't that be a lot harder to do if they didn't have a nice list of everyone who owned a gun?


Ok, let me state this as succinctly as I can. The US Gov't already has those lists. This story is about making those lists a matter of public record. This isn't a totalitarian power grab, it's a transparency/privacy thing. Try arguing for or against this thing that it actually is.


Yes. I'm aware of this. I was just adding an additional aspect of this. It's why I argued earlier (don't remember which thread) that instead of registering guns owned, or making gun registration a special process one has to apply for, we should simply maintain a registry of everyone who is eligible to own a gun. This was the whole "make gun registration just like registering to vote" bit. That way we know everyone who *can* own a firearm, thus making background checks super easy and quick, but knowledge of who actually owns guns and what they own is still private. Part of my thinking for that is precisely because it prevents the government from having even the potential of rounding up people's guns on a mass scale because nearly everyone would be on the "able to buy guns" list.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#947 Feb 26 2013 at 6:40 PM Rating: Good
******
44,019 posts
gbaji wrote:
It's why I argued earlier (don't remember which thread) that instead of registering guns owned, or making gun registration a special process one has to apply for, we should simply maintain a registry of everyone who is eligible to own a gun. This was the whole "make gun registration just like registering to vote" bit. That way we know everyone who *can* own a firearm, thus making background checks super easy and quick, but knowledge of who actually owns guns and what they own is still private.
I really need to stop underestimating you. Every time I think you can't possibly know any less about firearms and politics, you go and prove me wrong. That registry already exists, nimrod. You'd know that if you bought a gun in the last twenty years. Smiley: laugh

Edited, Feb 26th 2013 7:42pm by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#948 Feb 26 2013 at 7:16 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
This was the whole "make gun registration just like registering to vote" bit. That way we know everyone who *can* own a firearm, thus making background checks super easy and quick, but knowledge of who actually owns guns and what they own is still private.

So then NOT like voting where someone can pull up a list of every time you cast a ballot and in which precinct and even (for primaries) if you requested a Democrat, Republican or third party ballot. Rather than just whether or not "who *can* vote".
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#949 Feb 26 2013 at 9:28 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,767 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
It's why I argued earlier (don't remember which thread) that instead of registering guns owned, or making gun registration a special process one has to apply for, we should simply maintain a registry of everyone who is eligible to own a gun. This was the whole "make gun registration just like registering to vote" bit. That way we know everyone who *can* own a firearm, thus making background checks super easy and quick, but knowledge of who actually owns guns and what they own is still private.
I really need to stop underestimating you. Every time I think you can't possibly know any less about firearms and politics, you go and prove me wrong. That registry already exists, nimrod. You'd know that if you bought a gun in the last twenty years. Smiley: laugh


Yes, idiot. I'm talking about how I think things should be, not how they are now. And frankly, I think arguments of the form "the government is already doing X, so there's no point in preventing it from doing Y" are monumentally stupid.


And I see you've still avoided answering my question about the 4th (and 9th and14th) amendment as it relates to the principle of privacy. Shocking really.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#950 Feb 26 2013 at 9:33 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,767 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
This was the whole "make gun registration just like registering to vote" bit. That way we know everyone who *can* own a firearm, thus making background checks super easy and quick, but knowledge of who actually owns guns and what they own is still private.

So then NOT like voting where someone can pull up a list of every time you cast a ballot and in which precinct and even (for primaries) if you requested a Democrat, Republican or third party ballot. Rather than just whether or not "who *can* vote".


Both were presented as hypothetical cases Joph. Both are how I think we *should* be handling these things rather than the screwed up ways that we are. As I clearly explained earlier, if we used some kind of ID for this, then there would be no need to track that other information. The screwed up way we do things is not only less effective at preventing registration and voter fraud but also has the charming side effect of requiring that voters share more information about themselves and their votes than is necessary.

Which was why I proposed that solution.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#951 Feb 26 2013 at 9:54 PM Rating: Excellent
******
44,019 posts
gbaji wrote:
Yes, idiot. I'm talking about how I think things should be, not how they are now. And frankly, I think arguments of the form "the government is already doing X, so there's no point in preventing it from doing Y" are monumentally stupid.
You didn't mention a Y though, you drew a picture of a fish with crayons on X and claimed it as your own. There's already a registry of everyone who *can* own a firearm, and backgrounds checks are fairly super easy and quick (usually a single phone call, in fact! Another fact: From 1994 through 2009, over 107 million background checks were conducted!) and the knowledge of who actually owns guns and what they own is still relatively private. You didn't come up with it, shit for brains. And we only need to point to Sandy Hook to see how well "your" brilliant idea works.

Seriously, how shallow is your well of knowledge? Is it a well? Maybe a thimble?

gbaji wrote:
And I see you've still avoided answering my question about the 4th (and 9th and14th) amendment as it relates to the principle of privacy. Shocking really.
Nah, shocking is how they've been answered and you're just not liking the answers so you're repeating yourself in hopes of getting a new answer. Not like it's any surprise that you hate consistency. Probably the difference being my answer deal with analysis of facts and data, and yours are on emotional hypotheticals and third-hand information. Maybe if I was a little ***** like you I'd cry about how you completely ignored my analysis of your votes and gun ownership theory (which coincidentally you've completely dropped), or how looking at the facts proved how luck was the highest factor when dealing with concealed carry and mass shootings (something else that you just coincidentally completely dropped), or how you're as we speak slipping away from SECOND AMENDMENT into FOURTH NINTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS! Alas, I know how scared you are of facts and have let you scurry away from them each and every time with nary a word.

Edited, Feb 26th 2013 10:55pm by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 40 All times are in CDT
Bijou, Jophiel, Kavekkk, TirithRR, tribalfusion009, Anonymous Guests (35)