I offered a solution to the problem under discussion. You wanted to take it and immediately apply it to other issues. That’s antis in a nutshell. Never give them inch, or they want a hemisphere.
Still nope. Try again, though.
What other issues? Smuggling guns? Getting guns into criminal’s hands?
If you think it is enough of a crime to get guns into criminal hands in Mexico to call for the death penalty, why do you think that putting guns into the hands of criminals in the US should be considered more leniently?
And you shouldn’t put guns in the hands of strawmen either.
You were all about guns into Mexico. I offered a very stern solution and asked if you would sign off. You took it and ran off with it into other, internal US, matters when the answer was a simple yes or no.
At least I understand why you don’t like dealing with anti’s, you don’t know how to negotiate with anyone at all.
Your negotiation method is “Here is a solution, take it or leave it”, and that is a negotiation method that simply does not work.
How about this? If you assist in getting guns into the hands of criminals, then that is a capital offense. Would you sign off on that? Simple yes or no.
IN CA yes, they can show up and ask when and where you sold it. It hasnt done anything to reduce violent crime.
You have decided to stop debating honestly. I am done with you.
Be more specific. What kind of criminals are you talking about? How am I assisting?
Right, because the guy who sold it can say “I sold it to some guy outside the gun shop, didn’t get a name.”
Is it not just a simple yes or no question, or are you admitting that the “solution” that you proposed earlier was not in good faith?
What kind of criminals do you think? The kind that use guns to commit crimes. You are assisting by selling or giving the guns to people without performing necessary checks to make sure that they are not criminals, nor from out of state, before giving them access to the guns.
Yeah…this is over.
Yeah, I suppose it should be. With the way you guys are shifting the goal posts.
You said
I was never about guns in mexico, that was a distraction that DrDeth brought up, to divert the discussion from guns in the US. You then brought up what you claimed to be a solution, but it turns out that you only offered that as some sort of “gotcha” deal, exposed for such as when it was addressed to whether you would accept such a deal, you refused to answer “yes or no,” as you expected others to do, but instead started acting offended when asked the same question you asked of others.
You say it is over, but in order for it to be over, it would have to have a beginning, where you would have had to at some point actually been arguing in good faith, and I’m not seeing that.
Nope, I was responding to the usual distraction of how wonderful the (small subset) of the rest of the world is.
You mean when you said this:
Nah, you brought it up, as a distraction. Unless you were wanting to show how the strict Mexican gun control can be applied to the united states, the only reason that you brought it up was to divert the conversation from the talk of gun control in the United States.
However, since you brought it up, it did parallel nicely, in that guns are flowing from a place with lax gun control, the USA, into a place with strict gun control, Mexico, similarly to how guns are flowing across state lines from states with lax gun control to states with stricter.
If you were not meaning it as an analogy of that sort, then what type of good faith argument were you planning on launching from your statement?
People who think revolution is impossible clearly do not study enough history.
Revolution is unbelievably unlikely. I guess it’s possible, but it’s still unlikely.
Needing guns to protect yourself from other citizens in the event of a large-scale disaster that creates scarcity of food, water, heat, and refrigeration, is far more likely. Still unlikely, yet…far more likely.
The military will be stretched very thin indeed in that kind of scenario.
What if terrorists somehow detonated three “small” nuclear devices - one in downtown Los Angeles, one in Chicago, and one in the heart of Manhattan? I would not be surprised if the casualties from even one of those cities would strain the resources of the government (including the National Guard of every single state) to its breaking point, to say nothing of all three. And meanwhile, what’s happening in the rest of the country? What’s happening in Boston? What’s happening in San Francisco? What’s happening in Milwaukee?
I have literally no fear whatsoever of the hypothetical “tyrannical government” whose spectre is perpetually raised by gun advocates…but I do have a fear of the scenario above. Not a huge fear, but enough that I’m glad I do have guns.
I’ve read a good deal of the Constitution, never the entire thing, granted. I’m not sure what you believe I would gleam from reading the entire document?
No, I am not an NRA member. I have no reason to lie because that would not be in the interest of true, open debate, but it is your choice to believe what you want.
I see anyone engaging in a revolution who has a more hopeful vision for the future, anyone who has nothing else to lose, or everything to gain. George Washington was called a “traitor,” but he will forever be America’s first President and one of the most shining examples of what a real patriot is. He was labeled a traitor on one side, and a revolutionary on the other side. Labels are interesting that way.
Revolution is always on the basis of philosophy first, action second. We are in the midst of defining our revolution, holding dialogue about it. Actions will come later, actions explode from the introduction of catalysts – the Boston Massacre was a catalyst for the revolutionary war. Bankruptcy was a catalyst for the French revolution. Extreme oppressive social stratification was the catalyst for the Haitian revolution. This is how history is.
Our voting system is not without flaws, corruption, and interference, please do not pretend that it is an altruistic final solution. It is naively idealistic to consider this current government “of the people,” this current government is a corporate plutocracy run by lobbying dollars and campaign money; if you can’t see that then my assumption would be that you are either extremely privileged or wishing to end the debate with ungrounded idealism rather than hard-hitting pragmatism.
American capitalism fails when it no longer serves the majority and cannot offer a secure standard of living. When the system no longer serves the masses, the masses revolt. That is how history is. American capitalism is doing a fine job for arguing itself out of existence.
Yes, this is another scenario to consider, and like you said, more likely. The planet is significantly overpopulated relative to what our technology can support. There are many people out there watching the potable water levels…if a crisis ever hit and entire cities could no longer sustain their citizens, and mass waves of refugees move to parts of the country offering water, we will see violence break out.
I would consider such an event a catalyst for revolution. Once more people feel the effects of an incompetent government, then questions begin to be asked about why they are so incompetent, and why can’t we do better?
Watch the brilliant and brutal BBC film “Threads” on the effects of a nuclear war. It is the only film that comes close to capturing the reality of society coping with the effects of such an event in anything resembling realism. I’d expect no less from Cold War-era Britain.
Pay attention in particular to the scenes in which refugees from rural areas are forcibly quartered in the flats of city-dwellers by police; and the riots over distribution of food. And that’s in a country with virtually no guns.
Thank you.
Again, I stress that this is unlikely. There was a time when I’d spend hours dwelling on this kind of shit…a very bad time indeed. Glory to God, I am no longer that guy anymore. But I’m still acknowledge the possibility.