Won't anyone think of the poor, sensitive Lawful Gun Owner?

[LA Grant]

20 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

Yes it does, unless you amend the constitution itself - which again, is possible but if it's your goal you're going about it backwards. 

 

You're dreaming if you think you can get a ban on semi autos. It shows you don't understand firearms enough to have this kind of nuanced conversation. Look into the history of trying to do this, how it failed, and how it widened the divide between the gun rights people and the gun control people. 

 

I'm trying to help you by pointing out areas you should avoid talking about if you're actually interested in building a consensus that actually can bring about the changes you want to see. 

 

I don't have a side, other than believing in the rule of law. I'm not in the NRA, I'm not even a gun owner. 

 

And yet - everything you're proposing - including "reduced access" - only addresses legal gun ownership. That's like saying you're going to stop drunk driving by banning sober people from owning cars. It's lunacy. 

 

Just shootings? That's it? 

 

So you really only DO care about guns, not getting to the root cause of mass murders. 

 

a) I don't expect to change the Constitution on PPP, if that's what you think my goal is?? But bridging the gap of understanding is not going about it backwards.

 

b) A ban on semi autos is not impossible just because it has failed before. People determine laws. People (theoretically) are capable of adapting to new circumstances. This is (theoretically) one of the upsides of people in a representative society. 

 

c) Now you are beginning to get it. Legal Gun Owners are part of the problem. They do not think they should be inconvenienced. Yes, they should. Your drunk driving example is inaccurate — the solutions proposed are to ensure that there are measures in place to prevent the "drunk driving" of guns. Would your solution to drunk driving be "de-regulated traffic laws"? Would your solution be "what about mental health & fatherhood"? Of course it wouldn't (presumably).

 

Look. We cannot know the future. If someone who has a legal license will someday drive drunk, you can't predict that ahead of time. Similarly, if someone who purchases a gun is going to use it for mass murder, it can't always be predicted. SOMETIMES IT CAN. If you get DUIs, you lose your driving privileges. But if you say "I'm going to shoot up the school," you can still exercise your GOD GIVEN INALIENABLE RIGHTS to purchase an AR-15 in Florida and own it without any problems. That's the closest you're going to get to knowing someone is a danger to others as clearly as drunk driving. Unlike a DUI, you can't merely take the gun privilege away from someone after they've used it improperly because by that time, they are a murderer and you've already lost.  

 

Can you see why the problem is madness? Does this really not make any sense to you?

 

d) Correct, the issue is guns. They are the common root in mass shootings. Are there other variables? Obviously. But to pretend guns are not part of the root problem is pure lunacy, as you put it.

Edited February 23, 2018 by LA Grant

[Deranged Rhino]

16 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

 

a) I don't expect to change the Constitution on PPP, if that's what you think my goal is?? But bridging the gap of understanding is not going about it backwards.

 

 

I am all for bridging gaps and having a conversation. But if you want that to be successful down here you have to have better arguments or a better understanding of history. Otherwise you are going to end up doing the opposite as this place THRIVES on dismantling lesser arguments. Especially ones rooted in emotion rather than logic or fact. 

 

17 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

 

b) A ban on semi autos is not impossible just because it has failed before. People determine laws. People (theoretically) are capable of adapting to new circumstances. This is (theoretically) one of the upsides of people in a representative society. 

 

Yes, a ban on semi-autos in either of our lifetimes is next to impossible. It's been tried many times, and has failed many times, because it's NOT AN ARGUMENT DESIGNED TO STOP MURDER, it's an argument designed to BAN GUNS.

 

In order to understand why you should familiarize yourself more with what classifies a weapon as a semi automatic.

 

19 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

 

c) Now you are beginning to get it. Legal Gun Owners are part of the problem. They do not think they should be inconvenienced. Yes, they should. Your drunk driving example is inaccurate — the solutions proposed are to ensure that there are measures in place to prevent the "drunk driving" of guns. Would your solution to drunk driving be "de-regulated traffic laws"? Would your solution be "what about mental health & fatherhood"? Of course it wouldn't (presumably).

 

No they're not part of the problem. Framing it in such a way that they are weakens your argument and makes it one based on emotion and outrage rather than logic and facts. The drunk driving comparison is apt. You disagree because clearly your goal is taking guns away from LAW ABIDING citizens because you do not like them. You keep denying this is your goal, then follow up those statements with something like this. 

 

21 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

Look. We cannot know the future. If someone who has a legal license will someday drive drunk, you can't predict that ahead of time. Similarly, if someone who purchases a gun is going to use it for mass murder, it can't always be predicted. SOMETIMES IT CAN. If you get DUIs, you lose your driving privileges. But if you say "I'm going to shoot up the school," you can still exercise your GOD GIVEN INALIENABLE RIGHTS to purchase an AR-15 in Florida and own it without any problems.

 

Again, this is a ridiculous argument. The law FAILED to prevent the Florida shooting despite 39 visits by LEOs. The shooter made threats, was mentally unstable, had no business owning a weapon - but he was able to not because of the 2nd amendment, but because the police FAILED to do their job. 

 

Now, if you want to get into the weeds as to how they !@#$ed up, you're not going to like it because we're going to have to talk about more causes than just the tool used to commit the crime. That's not a conversation you wish to have, as you've shown, because to you the guns are the problem. By your own admission, LEGAL GUN OWNERSHIP is part of the problem. 

 

That's idiocy. Plain and simple. Emotional blather devoid of logic or reason. 

 

25 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

d) Correct, the issue is guns. They are the common root in mass shootings. Are there other variables? Obviously. But to pretend guns are not part of the root problem is pure lunacy, as you put it.

 

So there were no mass slaughters in history without guns? You REALLY want to make that case?

 

You don't care about saving children. You care about stopping people from owning guns. 

 

That's what you're admitting. And it's why your arguments are failing. 

 

Get better arguments. That starts by educating yourself more on the contributing factors OUTSIDE of the tools used to commit the crimes. 

[LA Grant]

9 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

I am all for bridging gaps and having a conversation. But if you want that to be successful down here you have to have better arguments or a better understanding of history. Otherwise you are going to end up doing the opposite as this place THRIVES on dismantling lesser arguments. Especially ones rooted in emotion rather than logic or fact. 

 

Yes, a ban on semi-autos in either of our lifetimes is next to impossible. It's been tried many times, and has failed many times, because it's NOT AN ARGUMENT DESIGNED TO STOP MURDER, it's an argument designed to BAN GUNS.

 

In order to understand why you should familiarize yourself more with what classifies a weapon as a semi automatic.

 

No they're not part of the problem. Framing it in such a way that they are weakens your argument and makes it one based on emotion and outrage rather than logic and facts. The drunk driving comparison is apt. You disagree because clearly your goal is taking guns away from LAW ABIDING citizens because you do not like them. You keep denying this is your goal, then follow up those statements with something like this. 

 

Again, this is a ridiculous argument. The law FAILED to prevent the Florida shooting despite 39 visits by LEOs. The shooter made threats, was mentally unstable, had no business owning a weapon - but he was able to not because of the 2nd amendment, but because the police FAILED to do their job. 

 

Now, if you want to get into the weeds as to how they !@#$ed up, you're not going to like it because we're going to have to talk about more causes than just the tool used to commit the crime. That's not a conversation you wish to have, as you've shown, because to you the guns are the problem. By your own admission, LEGAL GUN OWNERSHIP is part of the problem. 

 

That's idiocy. Plain and simple. Emotional blather devoid of logic or reason. 

 

So there were no mass slaughters in history without guns? You REALLY want to make that case?

 

You don't care about saving children. You care about stopping people from owning guns. 

 

That's what you're admitting. And it's why your arguments are failing. 

 

Get better arguments. That starts by educating yourself more on the contributing factors OUTSIDE of the tools used to commit the crimes. 

 

Foolishness. It's not like I don't understand your position. Here, to your point, a quick read: https://www.popehat.com/2015/12/07/talking-productively-about-guns/

 

Obviously something can be done. The idea that nothing can be done is asinine. That's the point, because nothing will continue to happen with stubborn attitudes like you're laying out. Cops in Parkland, supposedly one of the safest places, specifically have said that stronger gun laws would have allowed them to do something earlier. There are stronger laws to make the airport more of a hassle to prevent another 9/11 by taking your shoes off, somehow we all accept this; grumble, but accept. At the very least it wouldn't hurt.

 

Except that you think it would not only hurt, but be some dramatic red-skied invasion where troops are coming in to your home to take your weapons. That is not the endgame. I'm not a hostage negotiator so I don't know how to talk you off of that ledge other than to say again and again that it isn't the case. I don't care about your stupid guns hunting deer, or shooting beer cans in the woods. You can deal with some additional forms and tests for that privilege, because those measures could clearly save lives.

 

Again, this podcast below. Take a listen. Really. Its 2 Iraq vets talking logistics on how to secure a HS similar to a government embassy and estimate it would take minimum 60 but really 120 infantry to secure the building properly. And what weapons are they carrying to counter AR-15s? Rather than restricting guns, in ANY way, which you think inevitably immediately leads to dystopia, somehow THIS is a better solution, despite armed guards throughout schools practically being a dictionary definition of dystopia.

 

 

 

[Deranged Rhino]

9 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

 

Obviously something can be done. The idea that nothing can be done is asinine.

 

I never said nothing can be done. 

 

I said the "solutions" you're offering aren't really solutions to the problem. 

 

Difference. 

10 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

 

Cops in Parkland, supposedly one of the safest places, specifically have said that stronger gun laws would have allowed them to do something earlier

 

39 warnings. And they did nothing. 

 

The cops in Parkland, and the FBI, are in CYA mode. They're lying to you. 

 

11 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

 

There are stronger laws to make the airport more of a hassle to prevent another 9/11 by taking your shoes off, somehow we all accept this; grumble, but accept.

 

That's a GREAT example to use. And if you were familiar with my positions on this matter you'd know better than to bring it up. But you did. So let's go:

 

What else did we "accept" after 9/11? The curtailing of our 4th and 5th amendment rights. How did that turn out? 

 

Now we live under the most invasive surveillance state in history.

 

Has it made us safer? Nope.

 

Has it ended terrorism? Nope.

 

What did it do?

 

It made us easier to control and allowed rogue elements within the executive branch to abuse the FISA system in order to spy on their political opposition. 

 

See how the consequences for an over correction are WORSE than what came before?

 

So now you're saying that even though we KNOW surrendering our 4th and 5th amendments in the name of fighting terror did NOTHING to stop terrorism and NOTHING to make us safer, in fact it made us LESS SAFE, you're saying let's double down on our stupidity and start tinkering with the amendment that secures the rest. 

 

It's shortsighted, based entirely on emotion and devoid of facts. That's why you need better arguments. 

 

15 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

 

Except that you think it would not only hurt, but be some dramatic red-skied invasion where troops are coming in to your home to take your weapons.

 

 

 

I was told after 9/11 that the only way to stay safe was to give up my rights to privacy and due process. I was told it wouldn't really impact me... and yet, we've seen it has. It nearly cost us the republic. 

 

So forgive people if they aren't assured by your empty words that ALL you want is to stop mass shootings - especially when you have repeatedly gone out of your way to say legal gun owners are part of the problem and advocating for banning certain firearms. 

 

That you don't connect those dots is another reason why you're making such a lousy argument. 

 

17 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

 

I don't care about your stupid guns hunting deer, or shooting beer cans in the woods. You can deal with some additional forms and tests for that privilege, because those measures could clearly save lives.

 

They won't "clearly save lives". How many mass shooters in recent history have been weekend hunters? None? 

 

[LA Grant]

23 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

I never said nothing can be done. 

 

I said the "solutions" you're offering aren't really solutions to the problem. 

 

Difference. 

 

39 warnings. And they did nothing. 

 

The cops in Parkland, and the FBI, are in CYA mode. They're lying to you. 

 

That's a GREAT example to use. And if you were familiar with my positions on this matter you'd know better than to bring it up. But you did. So let's go:

 

What else did we "accept" after 9/11? The curtailing of our 4th and 5th amendment rights. How did that turn out? 

 

Now we live under the most invasive surveillance state in history.

 

Has it made us safer? Nope.

 

Has it ended terrorism? Nope.

 

What did it do?

 

It made us easier to control and allowed rogue elements within the executive branch to abuse the FISA system in order to spy on their political opposition. 

See how the consequences for an over correction are WORSE than what came before?

 

So now you're saying that even though we KNOW surrendering our 4th and 5th amendments in the name of fighting terror did NOTHING to stop terrorism and NOTHING to make us safer, in fact it made us LESS SAFE, you're saying let's double down on our stupidity and start tinkering with the amendment that secures the rest. 

 

It's shortsighted, based entirely on emotion and devoid of facts. That's why you need better arguments. 

 

I was told after 9/11 that the only way to stay safe was to give up my rights to privacy and due process. I was told it wouldn't really impact me... and yet, we've seen it has. It nearly cost us the republic. 

 

So forgive people if they aren't assured by your empty words that ALL you want is to stop mass shootings - especially when you have repeatedly gone out of your way to say legal gun owners are part of the problem and advocating for banning certain firearms. 

 

That you don't connect those dots is another reason why you're making such a lousy argument. 

 

They won't "clearly save lives". How many mass shooters in recent history have been weekend hunters? None? 

 

 

In reverse order... 

 

c) Exactly, weekend hunters are not the problem, but it's the lax gun laws that are exploited by the psychos. If preventing mass shootings means weekend hunters are inconvenienced, that should be an acceptable trade off.

 

b) We agree to a point. I acknowledge from the beginning that comparisons to airline security, DMVs, job applications — those are not perfect systems. And we agree on over-reaching on 4th/5th, Patriot Act surveillance, etc., as you point out. Our country is nothing but a mess of broken systems, frankly. The disagreement is on two things — the idea that nothing can be changed in the Bill of Rights - clearly it can;  and the idea that changes will always be broken, useless, and worse than before. I don't think you're right on your conclusions, either, because we also know the importance of surveillance, especially as what that means changes with technology. There is over reach, no argument! Point I'm making is it's not an absolute, it's not an either/or. Its a question of "how much is too much" and what's the trade-off?

 

We live in the most invasive surveillance state in history, alright sure. We also live during a time of more school/mass shootings than ever before. The correct answer is that these are both unacceptable, obviously the ideal is a balance between freedom and security, for privacy and for guns. Simply put: for privacy - too much security, need to dial back; for guns - too much freedom, need to tighten up.

 

a) Exactly. There were a terrible amount of warning signs. It did nothing. We agree: this is bad. Solution: More restrictive gun laws. Enforce those laws. He should not have been able to buy that weapon in that manner. Period.

 

[Deranged Rhino]

3 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

 

There is over reach, no argument! Point I'm making is it's not an absolute, it's not an either/or. Its a question of "how much is too much" and what's the trade-off?

 

 

Once you give up a right, you will NEVER GET IT BACK. We've seen that with the 4th and 5th. Now you're talking about the 2nd. 

 

The Bill of Rights are different than the rest of the amendments because of their provenance and history. This is what you're still failing to get. This country was founded to protect the people from over reach by tyranny which - until the formation of the Bill of Rights (which were influenced by centuries of philosophy and enlightenment thinking and formed the foundation for democracies in all shapes and forms across the globe) tyranny was the norm. Not the exception. 

 

What you're suggesting is that we've progressed to a point as a society where tyranny isn't a real worry anymore. That these bedrock rights, which fundamentally reshaped the world, aren't necessary anymore. They're fungible. 

 

That's incredibly shortsighted. Governments today have more power and capability than ever before to oppress us. We've seen it in this country, let alone the rest of the world. I argue the principles and ideals laid out in the BoR are more crucial to protect today than any other point in our history. 

 

[LA Grant]

Just now, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Once you give up a right, you will NEVER GET IT BACK. We've seen that with the 4th and 5th. Now you're talking about the 2nd. 

 

The Bill of Rights are different than the rest of the amendments because of their provenance and history. This is what you're still failing to get. This country was founded to protect the people from over reach by tyranny which - until the formation of the Bill of Rights (which were influenced by centuries of philosophy and enlightenment thinking and formed the foundation for democracies in all shapes and forms across the globe) tyranny was the norm. Not the exception. 

 

What you're suggesting is that we've progressed to a point as a society where tyranny isn't a real worry anymore. That these bedrock rights, which fundamentally reshaped the world, aren't necessary anymore. They're fungible. 

 

That's incredibly shortsighted. Governments today have more power and capability than ever before to oppress us. We've seen it in this country, let alone the rest of the world. I argue the principles and ideals laid out in the BoR are more crucial to protect today than any other point in our history. 

 

 

Incorrect. Tyranny should certainly be a worry. But the fight against it doesn't look like you're imagining it. I'm saying that all of the weekend hunters combined on their best day don't stand a chance against the US Military, in the absurd scenario where it led to a modern revival of the fantasy version of the American Revolution. The fight against tyranny is vigilance, not your rifles. Having an AR-15 is no help in that scenario, and it's also a pointless hunting weapon. All it does is be the widely available weapon of choice for mass shooters in America. It's the same damn message every time — Make it harder for these weapons to get in the wrong hands.

 

But because we don't want to inconvenience these men's fantasies or interrupt their gun cosplay in the basement, we will never consider it to be a problem or part of the solution when it comes to mass shootings. Guns are never the problem.

[DC Tom]

6 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Once you give up a right, you will NEVER GET IT BACK. We've seen that with the 4th and 5th. Now you're talking about the 2nd. 

 

 

You forgot the 1st, 6th, 8th, and 10th.

2 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

 

Incorrect. Tyranny should certainly be a worry. But the fight against it doesn't look like you're imagining it. I'm saying that all of the weekend hunters combined on their best day don't stand a chance against the US Military,

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War

[LA Grant]

1 minute ago, DC Tom said:

 

You forgot the 1st, 6th, 8th, and 10th.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War

 

Ha. 

[Deranged Rhino]

Just now, LA Grant said:

 

Incorrect. Tyranny should certainly be a worry. But the fight against it doesn't look like you're imagining it.

 

Fighting against it does not begin by surrendering the very rights we're all born with. That's helping the cause of tyranny, not fighting it. 

 

1 minute ago, LA Grant said:

I'm saying that all of the weekend hunters combined on their best day don't stand a chance against the US Military, in the absurd scenario where it led to a modern revival of the fantasy version of the American Revolution.

 

This is where you're wrong. Did you not watch any of the wars fought in the last 17 years in the middle east? Have insurgents and rebels not been fighting off more powerful and better armed forces for over a decade and a half now? 

 

No one is arguing that militias or hunters are going to fight toe-to-toe with the US military. You forget our army is a volunteer one, comprised of citizens. Citizen soldiers who swear oaths to follow the constitution first, not the orders of their men. If a civil war breaks out in this country you're not going to get soldiers shooting civilians unless those soldiers are imported from other states, or other countries. Otherwise, you're going to see those very soldiers siding up with their fellow citizens. 

 

Legal gun owners are not the problem, no matter how much you wish to make it so. 

 

6 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

 

The fight against tyranny is vigilance, not your rifles.

 

Yes. And that vigilance includes watching out for slippery slope arguments built on emotional outrage that are really designed to rob us of our bedrock rights. 

 

Like the arguments you're making - despite claiming you're not. 

 

7 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

 

 It's the same damn message every time — Make it harder for these weapons to get in the wrong hands.

 

 

Yet so far all you've argued for is making it harder for LEGAL GUN OWNERS to get their hands on the weapons. Criminals, by definition, don't follow the law. 

 

People who legally purchased and own their firearms are not the problem. They're not your enemy. The enemy are the people lying to you in order to divide us, to get us to fight with each other rather than looking to solve the real problems facing this country. 

 

And the real problems facing this country are not legal gun owners. 

 

We don't need to change the constitution to protect people, we need to enforce it as intended. We haven't done that in decades. 

 

9 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

But because we don't want to inconvenience these men's fantasies or interrupt their gun cosplay in the basement, we will never consider it to be a problem or part of the solution when it comes to mass shootings. Guns are never the problem.

 

It has nothing to do with inconvenience. It has to do with our fundamental rights as Americans. You are advocating changing the laws of the country to engineer a different reality. That's an uphill slog that ultimately won't stop mass murder from occurring. But you're welcome to try. I fully support individual advocacy. 

[3rdnlng]

U.S. citizens vs. the military and all their might isn't going to happen. The government would not be able to use the extent of their war making equipment. In addition, military people are not going to engage in a shooting war with the populace. I picture scenarios like the Bundy Ranch situation as what might happen. Nobody can tell me that the armed ranchers didn't make the feds back down and let things play out in court. In the meantime, Cliven kept his cattle.

[LA Grant]

3 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

Yet so far all you've argued for is making it harder for LEGAL GUN OWNERS to get their hands on the weapons. Criminals, by definition, don't follow the law. 

 

This seems like the crux of it: The Parkland shooter wasn't a criminal until after he shot up the school and murdered people. Before that, he was a Legal Gun Owner.

 

How do you solve?

[Deranged Rhino]

3 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

 

This seems like the crux of it: The Parkland shooter wasn't a criminal until after he shot up the school and murdered people. Before that, he was a Legal Gun Owner.

 

How do you solve?

 

That's a cop out. Literally. 

 

39 times authorities were warned. They ignored it. The system would have worked had they taken their jobs seriously. They didn't. 

 

Your solution is to let them off the hook and go after instead legal gun owners who have committed no crime. 

 

And in the process, that will undercut one of the most sacred inalienable rights in this country. That's how tyranny wins, not how you defend against it. 

[DC Tom]

5 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

 

This seems like the crux of it: The Parkland shooter wasn't a criminal until after he shot up the school and murdered people. Before that, he was a Legal Gun Owner.

 

How do you solve?

 

Seriously?  Nearly every state and municipality has methods by which the legal authorities can confiscate weapons based on a court finding of incapacity and/or danger.  Just yesterday here, an off-duty officer was shot and killed when he tried to help out in a domestic violence situation...shot five times with a shotgun wielded by a guy who had multiple DV complaints against him from his current and ex-wife, but was not disarmed as required under the law.  Similar two weeks ago - woman was shot by her husband, against whom she'd filed multiple DV complaints AND received a restraining order against him, which should have resulted in his firearms being confiscated had anyone bothered to enforce it.  

 

When you have THIRTY NINE complaints against you, there are plenty of mechanisms available.  

[Chandemonium]

44 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

I'm saying that all of the weekend hunters combined on their best day don't stand a chance against the US Military, in the absurd scenario where it led to a modern revival of the fantasy version of the American Revolution.

I said this yesterday in the other gun thread, but it's worth repeating here: this belief is all the more reason to support the second amendment. If you believe that in a worst case scenario where armed conflict is necessary to defend liberty the deck would be heavily stacked in favor of your oppressor, you should not willingly give up one of the few cards in your favor. To suggest otherwise is to suggest that freedom isn't worth defending because it might be difficult. I can empathize with that position because I think we're all afraid to die to varying degrees and likely more than we'd like to admit, but it's also ultimately an untenable position for those among us who believe that our freedom is literally the most important thing that we have.  You or I or anyone else don't get to make the choice for anyone else that their freedom isn't that important. I certainly don't fantasize about a modern armed revolution, in fact the prospect terrifies me, but the beauty of the second amendment is that it acts as a deterrent making a scenario where there's just cause for such a conflict less likely.

[BringBackOrton]

8 hours ago, Tiberius said:

We do it already all the time. Hand gun laws, laws against machine guns, etc.

Unacceptable. 

8 hours ago, KW95 said:

 

Yup, the safest method of transportation...Nice comparison. Too bad those 17 won't have a chance to fly on a plane anymore.

 

Was this an argument?

[TakeYouToTasker]

4 hours ago, LA Grant said:

 

Argument is the same, you simple mutant. I'll repeat myself, repeat arguments that have existed forever, as it is easily distilled. The government can have a role in solving societal problems. We should all want to have a government that can adapt to society's problems, based on majority rule w/checks & balances. The fact that it does not work that way in practice is a problem. It is a major reason why, despite gun reform having widespread support, it is not on the books.

Pro-tip:  Acting like a petulant 12 year old and being louder than the person you're arguing with doesn't make your argument better.  You're still making the same bad argument, only now you're attracting more eyes to the bad argument so more people can see how bad it is.  This sort of thing might work for you on Facebook, but it won't work here.  No one is impressed with your litany of non-sequiturs, ad-homs, and various other fallacies and sundry of poor arguments.

 

On to the meat:  No.  I reject your basic premise.  The government should not take an activist role in the day to day lives of it's citizens outside of intentionally limited, specifically enumerated, and narrowly defined guidelines that are hard coded into law.  Centrally directed social experimentation conducted at the barrel of a gun holding a monopoly on force is the antithesis of a free people.  As such as many pains as possible should be taken to prevent exactly the situation you describe as ideal:  a mobile and activist government empowered to "fix" people based on the whims of a majority.

 

Our Founders understood this, which is exactly the reason they made the Constitution, our High Law, very difficult to change by design.  This is a feature of our brand of republican democracy, not a flaw.

 

And I'll agree with you that this is a major reason gun rights violations have been hard to achieve.  And it's a good thing.

 

 

Like... this is complicated a little bit but it's not 

that complicated. The solution is obvious. Gun Reform. Even a mutant like you should be able to process. 

 

1) "But... gun legislation NEVER WORKS!!!!!" <--- Then out comes Chicago, California, any number of "what about" or "what if"s. The data overwhelmingly supports it. But the reason "gun control doesn't work" is a bad argument is because WE HAVE NEVER TRIED IT. Not on a national level. Not even to the degree of making gun laws & traffic/vehicle laws similarly restrictive (and ideally more).

Again, no.  The government should not be engaging in all encompassing social experimentation, especially in instances where it violates the natural rights of it's citizens.  A government empowered to act in this way is a tool of tyrants.  A government empowered to act in this way with a disarmed populace is a beacon to bad actors as is an insect to a fire.

 

2) "But... the founders said guns keeps tyrants away!" <---- This is a harder fantasy to break because it's like, how do you tell a 50-year-old man that he's not going to win in a fire fight? I know we grew up learning that the Revolutionary War was won a certain way, but you are not those people. Our lives are not those circumstances. The whole "good guy with a gun" thing is so dumb. Even that Dan Bilzerian dork, the instagram poker-millionaire guy who posts all about guns & poker & hookers, he was at the Las Vegas shooting, wasn't he? Did he "good guy with a gun" save people? No. He ran from the gunfire, obviously.

I don't necessarily expect to win in a fire fight with my government.  I expect an armed populace standing up against it's government which relies on a civilian military to give it's government pause; and even if it does not grant pause, I am not prepared to live as a serf.  I understand that you don't think rights are important.  You don't even believe in the concept of rights, as upthread you alluded to the "privilege of gun ownership".  But I and others have a different view of freedom, a better understanding of history, and a firmer grasp of the fragility of the concept of freedom, which is still in it's infancy; and we have the Law on our side, along with the firearms the Law protects. 

 

Finally, you don't care a whit for those 17 dead children.  If you did, you'd be interested in solving the problem that killed them.  You aren't.  You're just grateful that they died so you'd have more stacked corpses to raise your pulpit on.

[Doc Brown]

35 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

Pro-tip:  Acting like a petulant 12 year old and being louder than the person you're arguing with doesn't make your argument better.  You're still making the same bad argument, only now you're attracting more eyes to the bad argument so more people can see how bad it is.  This sort of thing might work for you on Facebook, but it won't work here.  No one is impressed with your litany of non-sequiturs, ad-homs, and various other fallacies and sundry of poor arguments.

 

On to the meat:  No.  I reject your basic premise.  The government should not take an activist role in the day to day lives of it's citizens outside of intentionally limited, specifically enumerated, and narrowly defined guidelines that are hard coded into law.  Centrally directed social experimentation conducted at the barrel of a gun holding a monopoly on force is the antithesis of a free people.  As such as many pains as possible should be taken to prevent exactly the situation you describe as ideal:  a mobile and activist government empowered to "fix" people based on the whims of a majority.

 

Our Founders understood this, which is exactly the reason they made the Constitution, our High Law, very difficult to change by design.  This is a feature of our brand of republican democracy, not a flaw.

 

And I'll agree with you that this is a major reason gun rights violations have been hard to achieve.  And it's a good thing.

 

Again, no.  The government should not be engaging in all encompassing social experimentation, especially in instances where it violates the natural rights of it's citizens.  A government empowered to act in this way is a tool of tyrants.  A government empowered to act in this way with a disarmed populace is a beacon to bad actors as is an insect to a fire.

 

I don't necessarily expect to win in a fire fight with my government.  I expect an armed populace standing up against it's government which relies on a civilian military to give it's government pause; and even if it does not grant pause, I am not prepared to live as a serf.  I understand that you don't think rights are important.  You don't even believe in the concept of rights, as upthread you alluded to the "privilege of gun ownership".  But I and others have a different view of freedom, a better understanding of history, and a firmer grasp of the fragility of the concept of freedom, which is still in it's infancy; and we have the Law on our side, along with the firearms the Law protects. 

I get the sense that you believe strongly in the libertarian philosophy.  Out of curiosity, what do you think of a Republican controlled federal government borrowing an estimated 955 trillion dollars this year?  Up 84% from last year and the most borrowed since 2012.

Edited February 23, 2018 by Doc Brown

[3rdnlng]

54 minutes ago, Doc Brown said:

I get the sense that you believe strongly in the libertarian philosophy.  Out of curiosity, what do you think of a Republican controlled federal government borrowing an estimated 955 trillion dollars this year?  Up 84% from last year and the most borrowed since 2012.

I think it's horseshit and suggest they reduce that deficit by about 99%.

[TtownBillsFan]

10 hours ago, thebug said:

Fair enough.  

Oh Bull Poop dude.  You've been trying to kill people's inalienable rights from the get-go.  Now you just say, fair-enough?  You give up all that you've been arguing?  Good enough, don't need to see you say anything more then.  Thanks! *thumbs up!*