Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #351  
Old 01-17-2019, 11:43 AM
doorhinge is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 9,390
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
The thread title asks what gun owners fear. We get it now - they fear black people with guns.
That's an incredibly racist thing to say. Poor people of all skin colors have a need for self-defense just as much as rich people who can afford armed body guards do. Democrats, and anti-2nd Amendment zealots, intend to ban firearms from everyone, including black people. They might as well chant that people don't kill people, inanimate objects kill people.
  #352  
Old 01-17-2019, 11:45 AM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 49,475
Who's been talking here about blacks and their propensity for violence? Y'all.
  #353  
Old 01-17-2019, 01:29 PM
DrDeth is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 40,468
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
The thread title asks what gun owners fear. We get it now - they fear black people with guns.
There's nothing anyone posted that would lead you to this racist conclusion.
  #354  
Old 01-17-2019, 01:31 PM
bump is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 17,722
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
The thread title asks what gun owners fear. We get it now - they fear black people with guns.
I don't think I can roll my eyes hard enough.

In my experience, there are a few motivations to own guns, only one of which is outright fear.
  • Sport users- hunters, shooting sports enthusiasts, plinkers.
  • Collectors - they like the engineering and history behind the weapons and like shooting them some too.
  • Fear types- these are the ones who are afraid of usually one of two things- either criminals, or the government.
  • Gun-as-tool people- these are the people who own guns because they're practical tools for their line of work- farmers, for example have need of guns to eliminate vermin and predators.

The government-fearing ones are usually worried about tyranny, and IMO, are the source of a lot of the problem. They've set up their internal narrative such that they're defending freedom by owning guns as a bulwark against a potential tyrannical central government. Which is fine and good, but the problem comes in that they then perceive any suggestion or attempt at controlling their access to said guns as the start of the aforementioned tyranny. So they dig in their heels as hard as they possibly can, convinced that they're in the right, and on the front line of defending our democracy and way of life against tyranny.

Usually these types overlap in any given gun owner- it's probably hard to find a gun-as-tool owner who doesn't also hunt or engage in shooting sports. And the fear-driven sorts are heavily overlapped with the collector types as well.

Last edited by bump; 01-17-2019 at 01:31 PM.
  #355  
Old 01-17-2019, 01:36 PM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 49,475
So why are they talking about blacks? Please note that their stated fear of "government tyranny" didn't arise, in recent times, until the civil rights movement, with forced desegregation and the forced end of Jim Crow etc., and has been parallel with it since.

Last edited by ElvisL1ves; 01-17-2019 at 01:38 PM.
  #356  
Old 01-17-2019, 02:11 PM
Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 39,096
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
So why are they talking about blacks? Please note that their stated fear of "government tyranny" didn't arise, in recent times, until the civil rights movement, with forced desegregation and the forced end of Jim Crow etc., and has been parallel with it since.
So, are you afraid of black people with guns, or not? You claim that gun owners are afraid of black people with guns because of the above. What's your reason?

Regards,
Shodan
  #357  
Old 01-17-2019, 03:21 PM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 49,475
Since you ask so politely: I fear assholes with guns. Color isn't an issue.
  #358  
Old 01-18-2019, 06:13 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 19,331
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
So why are blacks poor and prone to crime outside of the South, in deep blue states where their diversity is celebrated and racism has been extinguished? ...
Is English your first language? In my dialect 'extinguish' has a sense of finality, as in a dictionary's example:
Quote:
extinguish ex·tin·guish
Use extinguish in a sentence:
...
When a plague kills an entire population, this is an example of how to extinguish a population.
Do you really think racism has been extinguished in "deep blue" states? Are you well informed enough to know that over 4 million voters in relatively enlightened California cast a vote for the racist President in 2016?
  #359  
Old 01-18-2019, 08:25 AM
Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 39,096
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
Since you ask so politely: I fear assholes with guns. Color isn't an issue.
In post #310 you said you assumed evil intent by anyone who possessed a gun.

So either you assume anyone with a gun is an asshole, in which case you assume any black person with a gun has evil intentions and is an asshole. Or you only fear someone with a gun who is an asshole, and what you said in post #310 was incorrect.

So, assume two gun owners, one black and one white. Both assholes, neither assholes, or is one an asshole and the other isn't? And how do you tell?

Regards,
Shodan
  #360  
Old 01-18-2019, 09:04 AM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,614
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
... Do you really think racism has been extinguished in "deep blue" states? ...
Me? No. I think lots of liberals are racist assholes. I was having a conversation with DrDeth though, in which he seemed to be suggesting racism was a problem unique to the South. I was trying to highlight the silliness of that position.
  #361  
Old 01-18-2019, 10:19 AM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 49,475
Shodan, you'll find the answer completely contained in the previous post.

If there's an effort going on here to say "No, YOU guys are the racists!", you'll have to do better. You too, HD.
  #362  
Old 01-18-2019, 10:38 AM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 10,908
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
The post I was commenting on (#328) listed a bunch of things that he theorized might contribute to the high black murder rate. One of those things (the most absurd one IMHO) was "voting rights constantly threatened due to Jim Crow laws". In other words, it WAS "one of the things that DrDeth noted in his post that [I] replied to".

I'm not sure what your complaint is.
I guess I didn't understand what your point was. You took a single phrase out of context, and acted as if it were the entirety of the post. Now that you understand that it was one of many factors, do you get why your pulling out of one factor, and demanding to know if that one factor was solely responsible was an extremely poor form of debate?

I guess the question is, did you actually believe that each of those factor was individually responsible, or did you know, when you demanded to know how that factor was individually responsible, that it was not?


Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Your side doesn't stop at city limits. Cities and states that support gun control complain incessantly that the guns are coming from outside their jurisdiction, and they push to have their gun control schemes imposed on those other jurisdictions.
Depends on what you mean. If you mean by owning and carrying, then no one cares what you do out in the country. If you are talking about selling or transferring to others, then it would be useful that you do not sell it to people who would bring it into the city to cause harm. That's pretty much the only thing that I would ask of anyone outside of a city. I know, hard ask, to not give your gun to a violent criminal, especially if they are offering you money for it.

You guys are even pushing legislation that would require states to accept other state's CCW's, even disallowing the states to set laws on how guns are carried in their state.

Also, Heller did not apply to anything at all outside of city limits, San Francisco's requirement that you have a gun safe does not do anything to anyone outside of SF.

Why does anyone that does not live in SF care what SF does?

Yeah, you keep your guns out of our cities, and we don't care what you do with them. You insist on bringing your guns into the cities, then we should be allowed to have a say in how you carry them. If you insist on being able to sell them to violent criminals, then yeah, we will need to look into doing what needs to be done to stop you from continuing that practice.

Is that the freedom that you are so very concerned about, not being able to sell your gun to someone who will use it for violence?

Quote:
Originally Posted by doorhinge View Post
(post shortened)

Hahahaha. You claim that people who don't believe as you tell them to are ignorant. You claim they have been lied to. I find it to be just the opposite. Many anti-2nd zealots are proud of their ignorance of firearms, and of firearm issues from the point of firearm owners. They repeatedly ask the same questions as if the answers will magically change. They tell 2nd Amendment supporters that their concerns are not valid, or important. And they are shocked to find out that they still do not have the votes to change the 2nd Amendment. Maybe it's because We the People don't believe your side's arguments?
Wow, that's not even an argument, that's just a ball of stupid and ignorance in post form.

I've not met a gun control advocate "proud" of their ignorance of firearms, though I will admit that people who worship guns are probably going to know more about them than those who do not. As the gun advocate will flip his lid if clip/magazine are used "incorrectly", and claim that all gun control advocates are ignorant because someone used a term in a way they didn't approve, I think your perception of that ignorance is magnified by orders of magnitude.

And your idea that it is the same gun control advocate repeatedly asking the same questions whos that you simply lump people together, and do not consider them to be individuals, and that they should all have the same knowledge. It is not the same advocate asking the same question, it is multiple advocates, al asking a similar question. The whole, "if one more person asks that question..." thing, where you take out your frustration on someone who asked the question for the first time, but because it wasn't the first time for you, you react inappropriately.

You should note that "We the People" are very much in favor of gun control measures. Unfortunately, most "we the people" do not know how stymied what they would consider to be reasonable measures are by the fanatics on your side hiding behind and weaponizing 2A.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
So why are blacks poor and prone to crime outside of the South, in deep blue states where their diversity is celebrated and racism has been extinguished? Is it possible, just as food for thought, that the causes of crime and poverty are a bit more nuanced and complicated than your simple-minded explanation of "racism"?
Ummm, cite that racism has been extinguished, please?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
Since you ask so politely: I fear assholes with guns. Color isn't an issue.
I fear that, but I more fear the irresponsible idiot with a gun.
  #363  
Old 01-18-2019, 10:44 AM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 10,908
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
In post #310 you said you assumed evil intent by anyone who possessed a gun.

So either you assume anyone with a gun is an asshole, in which case you assume any black person with a gun has evil intentions and is an asshole. Or you only fear someone with a gun who is an asshole, and what you said in post #310 was incorrect.
I've been told many times that possession of a gun should not be a thing to be suspicious of.

Can you tell me what the restaurant owners in this story did wrong?

Quote:
Jimenez said Albert asked for a ride to the nearby church, but she refused. When he turned to leave, she said she saw that he had a gun.

That’s when Jimenez said she and her mother hid in the restaurant kitchen and called the police.
By the accounts of gun advocates in this thread, she should have minded her own business, and let him go shoot up the church, right?
  #364  
Old 01-18-2019, 11:24 AM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,614
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
... If you mean by owning and carrying, then no one cares what you do out in the country. ... Yeah, you keep your guns out of our cities, and we don't care what you do with them. ...
I wish that were true. People in upstate New York and rural California have been restricted on what they can own, largely by politicians representing the urban centers in those states.
  #365  
Old 01-18-2019, 12:27 PM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 49,475
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
I fear that, but I more fear the irresponsible idiot with a gun.
To me, those are a subset of assholes, but that's just definition.

To clarify, possession of a gun necessarily implies the willingness to use it, which in the absence of an otherwise innocent context necessarily implies assholitude, which in its armed state necessarily requires fear by the sane, and containment to the extent possible. The non-sarcastic use of the word "tyranny", or the claim that a gang of yahoos can be a "constitutional militia", are mere confirmation of what by then is already known.

So who started blaming black people for it?
  #366  
Old 01-18-2019, 12:49 PM
DrDeth is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 40,468
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Me? No. I think lots of liberals are racist assholes. I was having a conversation with DrDeth though, in which he seemed to be suggesting racism was a problem unique to the South. I was trying to highlight the silliness of that position.
Unique? I never said that. But it is far worse in the South, where it is institutionalized. Jim Crow Law, flying the CSA flag, memorials & schools named after the guy who founded the KKK, etc.

Racism occurs pretty much around the globe.
  #367  
Old 01-18-2019, 12:55 PM
DrDeth is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 40,468
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
...
You guys are even pushing legislation that would require states to accept other state's CCW's, even disallowing the states to set laws on how guns are carried in their state.

Also, Heller did not apply to anything at all outside of city limits, San Francisco's requirement that you have a gun safe does not do anything to anyone outside of SF.

Why does anyone that does not live in SF care what SF does?

Yeah, you keep your guns out of our cities, and we don't care what you do with them. You insist on bringing your guns into the cities, then we should be allowed to have a say in how you carry them. .
That actually would be a good thing. The whole thing about having a unified nation is that by crossing a state line or a city boundary you arent suddenly a criminal.

SF was banning and confiscating all handguns. Not just requiring gun safes. And there's a thing called the tyranny of the majority. Why do the minority have to give up their rights? Can a white majority in a city decide that blacks can't vote? Can a Solid GOP majority in a city decide that the media can't support Democratic candidates?

I live outside the South, yet I care about their Jim Crow laws, their institutionalized racism, etc.
  #368  
Old 01-18-2019, 01:00 PM
Scumpup is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 14,124
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
Since you ask so politely: I fear assholes with guns. Color isn't an issue.
We all do and commend your decision not to own a gun.
  #369  
Old 01-18-2019, 02:00 PM
bump is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 17,722
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
Is English your first language? In my dialect 'extinguish' has a sense of finality, as in a dictionary's example:


Do you really think racism has been extinguished in "deep blue" states? Are you well informed enough to know that over 4 million voters in relatively enlightened California cast a vote for the racist President in 2016?
Are you really ignorant enough to conclude that every one who voted for Trump is automatically racist? That's absurd.

About the worst you could say in that regard is that there are a lot of people out there who don't consider racism and/or inequality to be their chief concern when voting for a candidate.

That's not the same thing as being racist.
  #370  
Old 01-18-2019, 02:11 PM
bump is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 17,722
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Unique? I never said that. But it is far worse in the South, where it is institutionalized. Jim Crow Law, flying the CSA flag, memorials & schools named after the guy who founded the KKK, etc.
I think I might say "was institutionalized". Most of everything you say is from the 1950s at the most recent, and the vast majority is from a century ago, more or less. There has been a lot of effort to eliminate institutional racism since then. It's probably not all gone, but my guess would be that it's mostly gone.

What you see more of these days isn't outright racism, but more the legacy of historical racism- stuff like the fact that a large portion of the black population is afflicted with poverty due to historical racist policies, and as a result, doesn't do well on things like credit scores. So they can't get loans, or when they do, they have almost usurious terms. Is this racist? Not unless there's some sort of redlining or algorithm that would assign a different score to a non-black person with the same financial status. But it does impact the black community disproportionately.

Stuff like that is all over the place- to a certain degree the outcomes are the result of trying to apply the same yardstick to everyone's issue. It reminds me of the way the military requirements for certain jobs work. Due to the greater required strength for the jobs, it's almost certainly going to skew your soldiers in that position toward a very male-heavy ratio. Is it sexist? Not directly, but it does tend to weed out women from that position.
  #371  
Old 01-18-2019, 02:24 PM
DrDeth is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 40,468
Quote:
Originally Posted by bump View Post
I think I might say "was institutionalized". Most of everything you say is from the 1950s at the most recent, and the vast majority is from a century ago, more or less. There has been a lot of effort to eliminate institutional racism since then. It's probably not all gone, but my guess would be that it's mostly gone.
No, the GOP is bringing back Jim Crow, all over the South.

Mississippi refused to change it racist state flag in 2001, with 64% of the state voting no, showing that at least 64% of that state are racists.

Georgia had a OK state flag from 2001 to 2003 then racists changed it back to glorify slavery and the CSA.

Institutional racism is alive in the South. Not as much as before , but Trump has revitalized it.
  #372  
Old 01-18-2019, 03:32 PM
EscAlaMike is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: Alabama
Posts: 1,640
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
No, the GOP is bringing back Jim Crow, all over the South.

(snip)

Institutional racism is alive in the South. Not as much as before , but Trump has revitalized it.
No, that's just the image we choose to portray in order to deter Yankee immigration.
  #373  
Old 01-19-2019, 10:39 AM
postpic200 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 214
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
Not everyone. People who choose to avail themselves of the means to kill me, yes. Please drop the binary stuff, okay?

On what occasions is your "tool" expected to be so useful that you need to carry it? Useful for what purpose?

That's another method of evasion. But they're not equal, are they? You have decided to equip yourself with the means to end my life. That makes you a threat, no matter how much you may wish to reassure me, and yourself for that matter, that you don't intend to actually use it.

Yet.

You do wish the unarmed to have no recourse against you. That does indicate a lack of respect for the right to life - on your part.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
..avail themselves of the means to kill me, yes."
So everyone who take a martial art, who picks up a knife, hammer, drives a car, etc. Really there are MANY ways to kill someone. As I've pointed out the murder rate really doesn't change before and after a gun ban or restriction. How someone kills another person changes, but they keep killing at about the same rate.

As far as when I expect my "tool" useful, when I think my life or the lives of people around me are in danger. Of course you call the police who will respond to a serious crime in about 4.6 minutes, but as we've seen that doesn't mean they will do anything nor, according to the courts, do they have a duty to do anything.

So the police have no duty to you, they don't have to answer a call for help, they don't have stop a crime in progress, and on average they will take about 4.6 minutes to respond to a serious crime if they respond at all.

Now I'm not saying the police won't respond or help, but they have no duty to you.
  #374  
Old 01-20-2019, 07:21 PM
Fiddle Peghead's Avatar
Fiddle Peghead is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Harlem, New York, NY
Posts: 3,766
Quote:
Originally Posted by doorhinge View Post
Poor people of all skin colors have a need for self-defense just as much as rich people who can afford armed body guards do.
You make it sound like we all need to walk around with firearms for "self-defense" or we're all doomed to be mercilessly mugged or murdered on the streets. Have you seen what's been happening to the violent crime rate for decades?
  #375  
Old 01-20-2019, 07:47 PM
DrDeth is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 40,468
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiddle Peghead View Post
Have you seen what's been happening to the violent crime rate for decades?
Yes, I have. Have you seen that the number of guns is increasing even more? More gun and less crime.

Does this not disprove "less guns= less crime"?
  #376  
Old 01-20-2019, 09:43 PM
Fiddle Peghead's Avatar
Fiddle Peghead is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Harlem, New York, NY
Posts: 3,766
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Yes, I have. Have you seen that the number of guns is increasing even more? More gun and less crime.

Does this not disprove "less guns= less crime"?
While I wasnt speaking in this context, no it does not necessarily disprove that. Next question, please.😉🙂
  #377  
Old 01-21-2019, 01:28 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 15,371
It seems than many posters disagree with our basic founding principles contained in the Declaration of Independence.

If indeed we have no rights that are not granted by the benevolence of government, and those are the only source of any rights, then how does any source of any type of social "progress" or any sort of "good" come into play?

Suppose than an SS officer was transported to 2019 and was arguing here on the board that the extermination of the Jews was the law of his land and he believed it to be the correct and scientifically progressive thing to do. Surely nobody here arguing against the natural law/rights from God concept would concede that our modern view is just as equally correct as an abstract matter since rights only come from the government. So what document or what political or moral philosophy would you point at to convince the SS officer that our view is superior to his?

So help me understand. If there is no natural law, what makes things right or wrong? What makes gay marriage better than no gay marriage? What makes legal abortion better than no legal abortion? What makes caring for people as individuals superior to executing the disabled so as not to harm the gene pool?

If the Constitution was amended to outlaw free speech, would you believe that such was the result of a super majority of the electorate and was morally just as valid as having free speech? Would you obey the law and not say anything, content in your belief that you were just following the law of the land?

Last edited by UltraVires; 01-21-2019 at 01:29 PM.
  #378  
Old 01-21-2019, 01:58 PM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 49,475
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
It seems than many posters disagree with our basic founding principles contained in the Declaration of Independence.
Not least because they're contained in the Constitution.

Maybe, however, you can be the first to show where a basic, or natural, or God-given right to gun ownership can be found anywhere but in a strongly-contested and decontextualized interpretation of half of a sentence in it. What great religious and moral thinkers have considered it and pronounced it good? In what great classic works of civilization?
  #379  
Old 01-21-2019, 02:27 PM
Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 39,096
The Declaration of Independence. Didn't we already cover that?

Regards,
Shodan
  #380  
Old 01-21-2019, 02:32 PM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 19,331
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
If indeed we have no rights that are not granted by the benevolence of government, and those are the only source of any rights, then how does any source of any type of social "progress" or any sort of "good" come into play?
Your whole point of view is completely confused.

People want societies with "good" policies. Can we agree on that much? If a society has a bad policy it is desirable to replace it with an improved policy.

Problems arise when different people have different opinions about which policies are "good." The samurais of ancient Japan may have thought it good that they could behead any peasant on whim without retribution. The peasants may have thought otherwise.

Some may think a society is improved when many citizens have guns. Others may prefer to discourage gun ownership. Which version of society is preferable? That's up for debate.

Invoking the Name of God or blather about "natural rights" is irrelevant to this debate; it's just nonsense piled on by people who fear the evidence is against them.
  #381  
Old 01-21-2019, 02:38 PM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 49,475
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
The Declaration of Independence. Didn't we already cover that?
Yes, and you lost.
  #382  
Old 01-21-2019, 04:00 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 15,371
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
Your whole point of view is completely confused.

People want societies with "good" policies. Can we agree on that much? If a society has a bad policy it is desirable to replace it with an improved policy.

Problems arise when different people have different opinions about which policies are "good." The samurais of ancient Japan may have thought it good that they could behead any peasant on whim without retribution. The peasants may have thought otherwise.

Some may think a society is improved when many citizens have guns. Others may prefer to discourage gun ownership. Which version of society is preferable? That's up for debate.

Invoking the Name of God or blather about "natural rights" is irrelevant to this debate; it's just nonsense piled on by people who fear the evidence is against them.
1) Nobody invoked the "Name of God." The theory of natural rights is considered "self-evident" by our FF.

2) So, again, if you would answer my question...I do not believe you mean what you suggest. You wouldn't say that if a Constitutional Amendment of "Let's Kill All Blacks" vs. "Let's Don't Kill All Blacks" came up for a vote that is "up for debate" or that "people have different opinions" on it.

So what do you base your overriding morality about policy A which is a good subject for a healthy debate versus policy B, like the above, which I assume you would not think is the subject of a healthy debate in any decent or moral society.

Where do your ideas of morality come from if not from natural law?

Last edited by UltraVires; 01-21-2019 at 04:01 PM.
  #383  
Old 01-21-2019, 04:38 PM
Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 39,096
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
Yes, and you lost.
Did you actually not understand your own question? That must be confusing for you.

Regards,
Shodan
  #384  
Old 01-21-2019, 06:04 PM
Scumpup is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 14,124
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
Did you actually not understand your own question? That must be confusing for you.

Regards,
Shodan
He's either accusing you of being a Tory (Loyalist) or a supporter of The CSA. Or maybe both. Or maybe of being a chocolate fudge sundae. Or maybe you are right and he doesn't understand his own question. His arguments in this thread do not betray a broad or deep understanding of the issue. I confess that I skip his posts most of the time since he always says the same things in every one of these gun threads. Has he played the "my side is in favor of reducing the number of deaths" card yet in this thread?

Last edited by Scumpup; 01-21-2019 at 06:06 PM.
  #385  
Old 01-21-2019, 06:06 PM
doorhinge is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 9,390
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
Yes, and you lost.
You seem to be confused.
  #386  
Old 01-21-2019, 06:12 PM
doorhinge is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 9,390
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiddle Peghead View Post
You make it sound like we all need to walk around with firearms for "self-defense" or we're all doomed to be mercilessly mugged or murdered on the streets. Have you seen what's been happening to the violent crime rate for decades?
You obviously hear what you want to hear. Currently, you have the option of defending yourself. If you prefer a beating, being raped, or murdered, that's your choice. Personally, I like the idea of being able to defend myself, if necessary, while waiting for the police to arrive.
  #387  
Old 01-21-2019, 07:28 PM
doorhinge is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 9,390
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
I've not met a gun control advocate "proud" of their ignorance of firearms, though I will admit that people who worship guns are probably going to know more about them than those who do not. As the gun advocate will flip his lid if clip/magazine are used "incorrectly", and claim that all gun control advocates are ignorant because someone used a term in a way they didn't approve, I think your perception of that ignorance is magnified by orders of magnitude.

And your idea that it is the same gun control advocate repeatedly asking the same questions whos that you simply lump people together, and do not consider them to be individuals, and that they should all have the same knowledge. It is not the same advocate asking the same question, it is multiple advocates, al asking a similar question. The whole, "if one more person asks that question..." thing, where you take out your frustration on someone who asked the question for the first time, but because it wasn't the first time for you, you react inappropriately.

You should note that "We the People" are very much in favor of gun control measures. Unfortunately, most "we the people" do not know how stymied what they would consider to be reasonable measures are by the fanatics on your side hiding behind and weaponizing 2A.
Hahahaha. You're a hoot. You're idea of reasonable measures doesn't sound reasonable to many voters, but everyone is still entitled to their own opinions. And they should vote accordingly.

"Weaponizing 2A"? Is that a thing on your side? The 2nd is still about the unalienable right to bear arms. I guess the 2nd was "weaponized" way back in 1789.

If you, and yours, still can't seem to use the proper terms, or understand the mechanical functions, of something they wish to ban, why should anyone with an understanding firearms, and their mechanical functions, believe the propagandized horseshit being spewed by the anti-2nd zealots? Gosh, just because we don't know what we're talking about, that doesn't mean that we don't know what we're talking about. It's just not very convincing.
  #388  
Old 01-21-2019, 07:34 PM
Scumpup is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 14,124
I've heard, first hand, gun control advocates boast about things like bursting into tears just from touching a gun and not knowing or caring what any differences of type or function were. These are not people I trust to make or keep any bargain to do with gun rights.
  #389  
Old 01-21-2019, 08:59 PM
doorhinge is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 9,390
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scumpup View Post
I've heard, first hand, gun control advocates boast about things like bursting into tears just from touching a gun and not knowing or caring what any differences of type or function were. These are not people I trust to make or keep any bargain to do with gun rights.
Hmmm. Sounds like we have a stalemate. A stalemate that has existed since, at least, 1968. Gun banners can't be trusted. Anti-2nd zealots can't be trusted. Registration is just another step towards confiscation.

So it comes down to a vote, and your side simply does not have the votes to change the 2nd Amendment. Plus, it doesn't appear that your side is able to make a convincing argument that will actually convince anyone to change their mind.
  #390  
Old 01-21-2019, 09:12 PM
Scumpup is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 14,124
My side?
  #391  
Old 01-21-2019, 10:01 PM
doorhinge is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 9,390
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scumpup View Post
My side?
Mea culpa. Change every "your side" to read "their side".
  #392  
Old 01-22-2019, 12:25 AM
thelurkinghorror is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Venial Sin City
Posts: 13,701
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
Problems arise when different people have different opinions about which policies are "good." The samurais of ancient Japan may have thought it good that they could behead any peasant on whim without retribution. The peasants may have thought otherwise.
You are so close to getting why it's important.
  #393  
Old 01-22-2019, 01:30 AM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,614
Quote:
Originally Posted by thelurkinghorror View Post
You are so close to getting why it's important.
No, he's really not.
  #394  
Old 01-22-2019, 02:51 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 19,331
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
1) Nobody invoked the "Name of God." The theory of natural rights is considered "self-evident" by our FF.

2) So, again, if you would answer my question...I do not believe you mean what you suggest. You wouldn't say that if a Constitutional Amendment of "Let's Kill All Blacks" vs. "Let's Don't Kill All Blacks" came up for a vote that is "up for debate" or that "people have different opinions" on it.

So what do you base your overriding morality about policy A which is a good subject for a healthy debate versus policy B, like the above, which I assume you would not think is the subject of a healthy debate in any decent or moral society.

Where do your ideas of morality come from if not from natural law?
No one wrote "Name of God." Do you claim nobody wrote 'God-given'? And, regardless of how worthy the "FF"s may have been, do you understand the idiocy of pretending they are the high arbiters of which rights are "natural rights"? Was it natural that "three fifths of all other Persons" should be added to an enumeration? I understand that some people observe the Sabbath because of what the Finger of God wrote. Do you put the FF's on the same high pedestal as Allah? If not, let's just omit them from the discussion, OK? ... Unless this all is supposed to boil down to a pissing contest: "Does Noam Chomsky or James Madison have the higher IQ?"

And what is with the asinine question about "Let's Kill All Blacks"? Why don't you answer my question, and tell us if you agree with me that society should seek to evaluate policies based on [wait for it] the merits of those policies? If guns are good, fine. If they're bad, fine. What on Earth does poppycock about "natural rights" have to do with anything?
  #395  
Old 01-22-2019, 08:12 AM
Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 39,096
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scumpup View Post
He's either accusing you of being a Tory (Loyalist) or a supporter of The CSA. Or maybe both. Or maybe of being a chocolate fudge sundae. Or maybe you are right and he doesn't understand his own question.
I think by the logic (so to speak) of his position that he would have been a loyalist during the American Revolution. If you don't have a right unless the government says you do, the British government did not say there was a right to secede, therefore America did not have a right to secede.

But it was such a bizarre non sequitur. We spend some pages discussing how the Founding Fathers believed rights came from God, and they said so in the Declaration of Independence. Then, pages later, he asked where it is stated that rights come from God. So I mention what has already been discussed, that it is stated in the DoI, and his response is "you lost". Lost what?

I can't believe he is claiming that the DoI doesn't say that people are endowed by their Creator with rights, because, well, it does. I get that he doesn't want that to be true, but that is what it says. And if rights only exist if the government says so, then the American Revolution was wrong.

And further, the US government does say that we have a right to keep and bear arms. An individual right - see Heller. So even if you accept his position, he's still wrong. If God granted the right, then we have the right. If government granted the right, then we have the right.

Regards,
Shodan
  #396  
Old 01-22-2019, 08:24 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 19,331
I wonder what C. J. Cregg's stance on gun control is.
  #397  
Old 01-22-2019, 08:30 AM
SigMan is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,018
Rights exists only in laws and societies. In the wild it means squat as we do what the hell we wants.

No such thing as god-given rights. You do or you don't.
  #398  
Old 01-22-2019, 08:52 AM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 15,371
Quote:
Originally Posted by SigMan View Post
Rights exists only in laws and societies. In the wild it means squat as we do what the hell we wants.

No such thing as god-given rights. You do or you don't.
But we don't live in the wild. We live in a society that values fundamental liberty interests and one of those particular liberty interests is a right to self defense and the ownership of reasonable tools to effectuate that interest.

Under our founding system, we have held it to be "self-evident" that no government that would outlaw basic fundamental liberties is a legitimate government and it would be the right and the duty of the people to form a new government in that instance.

Again, if we toss aside the idea of natural law, then there is no baseline upon which to judge right and wrong. The SS officer in my example is on no lower moral footing than any of us arguing against him. We are just having a simple policy disagreement.

Do you care to point out how that conclusion is incorrect?
  #399  
Old 01-22-2019, 08:52 AM
Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 39,096
Quote:
Originally Posted by SigMan View Post
Rights exists only in laws and societies. In the wild it means squat as we do what the hell we wants.
That's why governments are instituted among men, to secure those rights.
Quote:
No such thing as god-given rights. You do or you don't.
Does not follow.

Regards,
Shodan
  #400  
Old 01-22-2019, 09:41 AM
bump is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 17,722
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
Not least because they're contained in the Constitution.

Maybe, however, you can be the first to show where a basic, or natural, or God-given right to gun ownership can be found anywhere but in a strongly-contested and decontextualized interpretation of half of a sentence in it. What great religious and moral thinkers have considered it and pronounced it good? In what great classic works of civilization?
The usual way I've always understood the intersection of natural law and the 2nd Amendment is as follows:

Natural Law: People have an inherent right to defend themselves and their families, and shouldn't be forced to rely on outside agencies (i.e. police) to do it for them, especially in situations where that protection may be spotty, delayed or ineffective.

<environmental condition>: Guns are the most effective tool for defending oneself- as the saying goes, "God made men, Sam Colt made them equal." In other words, with a pistol in her hand, a 95 lb 90 year old woman is a credible threat to a 270 lb, 6'6" man.

So from there, they interpret the 2nd Amendment as being an integral legal guarantee of being able to defend themselves and their families, even though reading while viewing it through the lens of history doesn't (IMO) really lend the amendment to a personal defense interpretation. Heller notwithstanding.

So if you get someone who is very concerned with personal defense, they're going to attach themselves to the 2nd Amendment like a limpet with something to prove.

Personally, I've found that the people who are most concerned about personal defense are usually not the types who you'd expect. I'd have expected women who have to be in relatively dangerous areas to be the most bullish about being able to defend themselves. But nope, it's always the grown white guys who live in the far suburbs who make the most noise about that. I don't think it's racism, per se, but they seem to have a worldview that the world is overrun with swarms of violent crooks out there to steal your stuff, rape your women, and kill you, if not for the continuous presence of the police, and in the odd moments when the cops aren't nearby, the presence of their trusty pistol/rifle/shotgun. Trying to take that gun from them leaves them feeling exposed to that super-violent, amoral world out there.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:01 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017