|
Guy Goodbody posted:C'mon dude, work with me here. You said that today, in modern, Amazon drone times, that private gun ownership could serve as a bulwark against tyranny. In defense of this, you brought up Shay's Rebellion, like 300 years ago some civilians did a rebellion and it got put down. The immediate result of which was the creation of a strong Federal government, with the ability to raise armies specifically to put down rebellions like Shay's Rebellion. Which they did just a few years later with the Whiskey Rebellion. So in context, bringing up Shay's Rebellion when talking about modern day gun owners rising up against the government is a complete non-sequitur. Yes, it was an example of when an armed population forced a change for the better to a broken system, just like you asked for. Guy Goodbody posted:Civilian gun owners took part in the genocide of the Native Americans You're trying to act as if "civilian gun owners" is some demographic instead of literally the entire US population and their right to own guns.
|
#
?
May 22, 2018 17:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 22:41 |
|
|
Canemacar posted:Yes, it was an example of when an armed population forced a change for the better to a broken system, just like you asked for. That's really pathetic dude Canemacar posted:You're trying to act as if "civilian gun owners" is some demographic instead of literally the entire US population and their right to own guns. Either way, it hasn't been very effective at preventing government overreach. As the genocided native Americans, millions of people in prison, and hundreds of thousands of immigrants in ICE detention centers will attest. Sorry dude, it's a bad, ahistorical, unsupported argument. Gun owners like to imagine themselves as noble heroes fighting against tyranny, but they aren't. They're the bad guys.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2018 17:26
|
|
|
A lady who had people kidnapped and sent to a secret prison to be tortured and then destroyed all recordings of the torture was just approved to be head of the FBI by Congress Thank god for the 2nd amendment keeping the government honest!
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2018 17:32
|
|
|
MizPiz posted:People who believe in the permanence of the American liberal hegemony are so adorable America is already eating itself, the world is just going to continue to stand by and watch and hope none of the nukes get launched at us.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2018 17:45
|
|
|
Turtlicious posted:I liked Sabriel better than Harry Potter. Is it because Sabriel is rad as gently caress? because that is the most accurate thing I may have ever said.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2018 17:46
|
|
|
Guy Goodbody posted:That's really pathetic dude It was the direct cause of the Continental Congress which created the governmental framework we still use today. That's a strange definition of pathetic. Guy Goodbody posted:Either way, it hasn't been very effective at preventing government overreach. As the genocided native Americans, millions of people in prison, and hundreds of thousands of immigrants in ICE detention centers will attest. Yeah, it kind of has. We've been using the American Constitution for 230 years. We were the first modern republic, and we are the longest lasting. It's not a perfect system, and bad things have happened in that time, but by any objective real-world metric, it works. Guy Goodbody posted:Sorry dude, it's a bad, ahistorical, unsupported argument. Gun owners like to imagine themselves as noble heroes fighting against tyranny, but they aren't. They're the bad guys. You're still doing the thing were you act like "gun owners" means "the people I disagree with".
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2018 17:59
|
|
|
This argument seems really silly. You are using a single point of data to "prove" that lack of gun control prevents government overreach, ignoring any other potential factors, such as civil society and social norms. You are also ignoring other democratic governments that seem to be doing just fine without second amendment equivalents.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2018 18:10
|
|
|
Canemacar posted:It was the direct cause of the Continental Congress which created the governmental framework we still use today. That's a strange definition of pathetic. The argument you are putting forward doesn't make any sense. The current government, the fact that it has a standing army, is a direct response to Shay's Rebellion, and the Whiskey Rebellion proved that the Constitution was effective in it's goal. They set out to create a government that could put down popular revolts, and they succeeded. So your theory that that government is limited by the threat of popular revolts is nonsense. The fact that you've now switched from "the right to bear arms prevents government overreach" to "Shay's Rebellion helped create a durable government" is just proof that you can't support the original argument you made. Now you're just dropping fun historical facts. And you're right, it is a fun historical fact. But it's a fact that argues against that first thing you said.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2018 18:14
|
|
|
AFancyQuestionMark posted:This argument seems really silly. You are using a single point of data to "prove" that lack of gun control prevents government overreach, ignoring any other potential factors, such as civil society and social norms. You are also ignoring other democratic governments that seem to be doing just fine without second amendment equivalents. That's not what I said.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2018 18:21
|
|
|
Canemacar posted:It was the direct cause of the Continental Congress which created the governmental framework we still use today. That's a strange definition of pathetic. It's not modern anymore.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2018 18:27
|
|
|
Canemacar posted:That's not what I said. So what are you saying? That because an armed rebellion worked once it can work again against a stronger government organized in such a way as to prevent an armed rebellion like the very one you cited from working again?
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2018 18:28
|
|
|
I'm gonna assign everyone a rematch of the 80's classic Red Dawn. That shows you what an armed America is capable of!
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2018 18:31
|
|
|
Guy Goodbody posted:The argument you are putting forward doesn't make any sense. The current government, the fact that it has a standing army, is a direct response to Shay's Rebellion, and the Whiskey Rebellion proved that the Constitution was effective in it's goal. They set out to create a government that could put down popular revolts, and they succeeded. So your theory that that government is limited by the threat of popular revolts is nonsense. Guy Goodbody posted:The fact that you've now switched from "the right to bear arms prevents government overreach" to "Shay's Rebellion helped create a durable government" is just proof that you can't support the original argument you made. Now you're just dropping fun historical facts. And you're right, it is a fun historical fact. But it's a fact that argues against that first thing you said. You keep shifting the goalposts. That's how we got from "the government knows pissing off a lot of armed people is a bad policy" to "if you cannot militarily defeat the government, you don't deserve guns". Canemacar has a new favorite as of 19:11 on May 22, 2018 |
|
#
?
May 22, 2018 18:31
|
|
|
Canemacar posted:You keep shifting the goalposts. That's how we got from "the government knows pissing off a lot of armed people is a bad policy" to "if you cannot militarily defeat the government, you don't deserve guns". What are you talking about? I don't even know where you got that second quote from, and the first quote is obviously wrong. The US government gives no poo poo about pissing off armed people. My goal post has, is, and always will be that the right for civilians to own guns has not historically prevented overreach by the US government, and will not do so in the future. And using that as a defense of gun ownership is loving pathetic. Every week another dozen kids are murdered, and we can't stop it because without your guns you couldn't fantasize about going John Wick on a bunch of FBI officers
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2018 19:11
|
|
|
Canemacar posted:You keep shifting the goalposts. That's how we got from "the government knows pissing off a lot of armed people is a bad policy" to "if you cannot militarily defeat the government, you don't deserve guns". The claim is that owning guns is a "right", and that the reason that this "right" is so important is because it's necessary that the citizens have a means of protecting themselves from a potentially tyrannical government. If we were to agree(I know we don't, but imagine if we did) that guns actually are not a meaningful deterrent to a tyrannical government, what's left to justify this "right" ? Deserve ain't got nothing to do with it. The argument has never been about what people deserve, it's about what they claim to have a "right" to, and what reasons they use to justify that beyond just pointing at the Constitution. Basebf555 has a new favorite as of 19:24 on May 22, 2018 |
|
#
?
May 22, 2018 19:21
|
|
|
Guy Goodbody posted:My goal post has, is, and always will be that the right for civilians to own guns has not historically prevented overreach by the US government, and will not do so in the future. And using that as a defense of gun ownership is loving pathetic. Every week another dozen kids are murdered, and we can't stop it because without your guns you couldn't fantasize about going John Wick on a bunch of FBI officers If things get to the point that people are waving guns around en mass, then the laws and institutions have already failed. Guns aren't the means by which people combat unjust laws; they're a last resort when there are no other options. The often cited Battle of Athens for example. And the only reason this is has become an issue is because you would rather strip people of their rights just so you can knee-jerk react to something instead of addressing the underlying causes. Hell, the most recent shooting happened with a shotgun and revolver, things that wouldn't have been illegal with that semiautomatic ban you were jerking yourself off about last time. Basebf555 posted:The claim is that owning guns is a "right", and that the reason that this "right" is so important is because it's necessary that the citizens have a means of protecting themselves from a potentially tyrannical government. If we were to agree(I know we don't, but imagine if we did) that guns actually are not a meaningful deterrent to a tyrannical government, what's left to justify this "right" ? People have a right to protect themselves, and not just from a tyrannical government. By that same logic, we don't need the 3rd amendment either because the government can afford it's own barracks. Canemacar has a new favorite as of 22:37 on May 22, 2018 |
|
#
?
May 22, 2018 20:19
|
|
|
Canemacar posted:People have a right to protect themselves, and not just from a tyrannical government. Ok, so it's not about firearms then. It's about a broad, general right to protect yourself. So you agree that you shouldn't have the unfettered right to own any gun you want? If a gun goes beyond what a reasonable person would expect to need for personal protection it could be made illegal and you wouldn't have a problem with that? Or does "right to protect myself" act as carte blanche to own whatever gun you want in as many numbers as you want?
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2018 20:26
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:Ok, so it's not about firearms then. It's about a broad, general right to protect yourself. So you agree that you shouldn't have the unfettered right to own any gun you want? If a gun goes beyond what a reasonable person would expect to need for personal protection it could be made illegal and you wouldn't have a problem with that? I wouldn't have an issue with restricting certain guns from being publicly available. The trick is figuring where to draw the line.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2018 20:31
|
|
|
Canemacar posted:I wouldn't have an issue with restricting certain guns from being publicly available. The trick is figuring where to draw the line. What about a stringent licensing system for guns along the lines of what we have for driving? Mandatory training classes, psych evaluation and license that has to be renewed every few years. Also, what's an example of a gun that you'd consider not fit for the public, and why is that? What about that particular gun makes it unsafe for the public to own it? Basebf555 has a new favorite as of 20:39 on May 22, 2018 |
|
#
?
May 22, 2018 20:34
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:What about a stringent licensing system for guns along the lines of what we have for driving? Mandatory training classes, psych evaluation and license that has to be renewed every few years. I'd definitely support a firearm handling class being a requirement to buying your first gun as long as it wasn't used to selectively weed people out(ie: the class is very expensive, or only available in a few locations and during hours most people can't attend). My opinion on the psyche eval would depend on the logistics. Like, if the eval could be done as part of the training class I wouldn't object. The renewal I don't agree with. If you forget or get busy and let it lapse, are you going get a felony? Do you lose your property and the monetary worth of the guns? An example of a gun that is legal, but honestly shouldn't be publicly available would a rifle chambered in .950. It would be a fun novelty to fire one in a gun range, but something like that is impractical for hunting, and useless for home defense due to it's size and the danger of the round going through several Canemacar has a new favorite as of 21:39 on May 22, 2018 |
|
#
?
May 22, 2018 21:13
|
|
|
Canemacar posted:And the only reason this is has become an issue is because you would rather strip people of their rights just so you can knee-jerk react to something instead of addressing the underlying causes.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2018 21:46
|
|
|
taking guns away is what the nazis did. yall dont wanna be nazis now, do you?
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2018 21:51
|
|
|
spit on my clit posted:taking guns away is what the nazis did. yall dont wanna be nazis now, do you? lol, reread your history book. the Weimar Republic(aka the pre-nazi government) was pretty strict. the nazis took over, used the laws to deprive jews of guns, and then turned around and relaxed them for non-jews
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2018 22:01
|
|
|
Elizabethan Error posted:lol, reread your history book. the Weimar Republic(aka the pre-nazi government) was pretty strict. the nazis took over, used the laws to deprive jews of guns, and then turned around and relaxed them for non-jews hmmm yes so they took the guns from the guys that really needed them (normal people) and didnt give a poo poo about the rest (people who will shoot innocent people) in other words you are tearing down whatever argument you are trying to make dont be a nazi
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2018 22:03
|
|
|
spit on my clit posted:hmmm yes so they took the guns from the guys that really needed them (normal people) and didnt give a poo poo about the rest (people who will shoot innocent people) 
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2018 22:08
|
|
|
Elizabethan Error posted:yah yah, gently caress off with your mobile goalposts. the nazis only took them away from a specific group, that's not the case here and you should be well aware of that, yet you aren't somehow. ok and you're defending these nazis who took guns away from the people that needed them by saying "but they only took them from a SPECIFIC group" taking guns from people is still taking guns from them, what the hell argument are you making edit: why am i arguing with a nazi, the gently caress is wrong with me
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2018 22:10
|
|
|
Elizabethan Error posted:the problem is that a lot of gun-supporters(aka the type of people that the NRA plays like bowstrings) will use mental health as misdirection until people get bored and the subject is dropped Honestly, gun control is to the left what abortion is to the right. Something that should be a done issue, but they keep banging that drum because it generates single-issue votes and lobbyist dollars.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2018 22:11
|
|
|
spit on my clit posted:ok and you're defending these nazis who took guns away from the people that needed them by saying "but they only took them from a SPECIFIC group" i'm making the argument that you're wrong about who the nazis took guns from. also lol that you think left-leaning folk can be nazis, just lol
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2018 22:11
|
|
|
Canemacar posted:Honestly, gun control is to the left what abortion is to the right. Something that should be a done issue, but they keep banging that drum because it generates single-issue votes and lobbyist dollars.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2018 22:13
|
|
|
Elizabethan Error posted:i'm making the argument that you're wrong about who the nazis took guns from. also lol that you think left-leaning folk can be nazis, just lol im saying they took guns from those that needed them. are you saying the jews didn't need a form of self protection? yeah and the democratic party of north korea are totally democrats
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2018 22:14
|
|
|
Elizabethan Error posted:birth control doesn't have a giant lobby behind it, nor do abortion clinics take money from the military Chill, I was trying to say the question of abortion should be a settled one, but Republicans keep attacking it because it gets them donors and votes.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2018 22:15
|
|
|
spit on my clit posted:im saying they took guns from those that needed them. are you saying the jews didn't need a form of self protection? yeah and the democratic party of north korea are totally democrats
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2018 22:17
|
|
|
Elizabethan Error posted:really curious why you're equating jews with mentally ill people? should we let no-poo poo crazy people have guns? is that what you're seriously arguing behind this reducto ad hitlerum wank? the crazy people are the people who have guns and are shooting innocent people, the people that DONT have guns are the regular joe - the people im equating the jews to. You must be very confused to think that i am switching those sides. Or maybe you're not confused and you just want to paint me as a nazi to cover up your own tracks.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2018 22:19
|
|
|
Removing guns from American society should be very simple. Just look at what civilised countries did and copy that. The brain work has already been done for you.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2018 22:22
|
|
|
spit on my clit posted:the crazy people are the people who have guns and are shooting innocent people, the people that DONT have guns are the regular joe - the people im equating the jews to. You must be very confused to think that i am switching those sides. Or maybe you're not confused and you just want to paint me as a nazi to cover up your own tracks.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2018 22:22
|
|
|
Elizabethan Error posted:yep, that's what i'm doing. calling you a nazi through the curious mechanism of not actually calling you anything of the sort, or bringing it up at all until you did. Do you know what an implication is? An implication is suggesting an idea to someone without blatantly relaying that idea to them. You can't not tell me that you aren't trying to pin me as one of these pieces of absolute scum that need to be wiped from the earth with how you've been posting. You want me dead. Keep replying with those emotes, you know what you're doing, and anyone else with a working brain can see what you're trying to do. You can't destroy me.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2018 22:25
|
|
|
sassassin posted:Removing guns from American society should be very simple. Just look at what civilised countries did and copy that. Instructions unclear. I am now married to a goat.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2018 22:28
|
|
|
Canemacar posted:Instructions unclear. I am now married to a goat. What are you, someone from Iowa?
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2018 22:29
|
|
|
spit on my clit posted:What are you, someone from Iowa? N-no. *Hides corn*
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2018 22:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 22:41 |
|
|
sassassin posted:Removing guns from American society should be very simple. Just look at what civilised countries did and copy that. The conservatives in this country like gun violence so it won't happen. The people in civilized countries don't like gun violence so they solved it.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2018 22:48
|
|
