Ben Carson Gum is a Holocaust of flavor in my mouth!
-
You know that thing about reading comprehension?
Yeah, and if a person disagrees with private citizens owning guns, no matter how gently they disagree with that, they are saying that private citizens should not own guns. They are just doing so gently.
-
Okay, I'll try again.
I think you should not comment on the internet, because your seemingly wilful lack of reading comprehension leads to you making yourself look like a total fucking bell-end.
I don't think you shouldn't be allowed to comment on the internet. Just that you shouldn't do it.
-
Meh. I get your point, you are arguing semantics of the argument as it has been stated. Fine. But, I have yet to see a case where someone says that citizens should not own firearms where there is not an implied "should not be allowed to".
Pendantry points for you.
-
But, I have yet to see a case where someone says that citizens should not own firearms where there is not an implied "should not be allowed to".
I think you're probably filtering what you read through your own preconceptions.Actually, scratch that.
You're definitely filtering what you read through your own preconceptions. You read what you want to read, without any respect for what the words are actually saying. That's why it took me 4 attempts, with highlighting and more or less sarcasm, to get you understand what I was getting at. That's why you've made yourself look like a total cockend on the Trans*
threadstrainwrecks. You need to get help.
-
You really are a fucking cunt. I just told you that you were correct and you are going to argue about how right you are.
-
Yea, I am. Nicest thing anyone's said to me all day.
However, I'm not trying to argue about how right I am - hell, even you have admitted that. I'm rather pointing out how utterly wrong you are, all the way down the line.
-
You're definitely filtering what you read through your own preconceptions.
No. Do a Google search for "should citizens own guns" and you will not find a result that argues about whether or not someone should purchase them if they are legally allowed to. Every result you find will be people debating whether or not it should be allowed.
As for the other threads, we had hundreds if not thousands of posts where we were attempting to discuss whether or not if a treatment existed for...well...anything would be acceptable and the other side argued that no it should not if it changes anything about that person. At all. Because it would be like murder.
So, you believe what you wish and I will believe what I know.
-
I'm rather pointing out how utterly wrong you are, all the way down the line.
Only if you wish to get utterly pedantic. Which is basically how these forums roll, and that is fine. But any argument about whether or not citizens should own firearms is really a debate about whether they should be allowed to.
-
I think you're probably filtering what you read through your own preconceptions.
That sort of thing from the other side is the exact reason I stopped posting on the trans thread and my own libel/shoulder alien thread. Them saying that my pointing out that policy has slowly but surely moved to the left implied that I was against civil rights was the final straw. So you win the Irony of the Day™ award. Not saying that you personally participated in the shoulder aliening, but you've certainly made no effort to distance yourself from the perpetrators.
-
Is it fuck.
Any discussion about gun control is immediately sidelined by a throng of cretins running around wailing "oh noes you want to ban our guns". But that's not what gun control is all about, and if you'd let yourself listen to the arguments as opposed to your fucking connugget shoulder aliens, you might possibly understand some of that.
From my point of view, I don't give a fuck if you own guns or not, although I am almost certain you'd be safer if you didn't. I do believe that the arguments given for gun ownership are almost entirely specious. In most cases, you simply don't have any compelling need to own guns, and almost certainly none that overrides the danger of owning them. They don't make you any safer, they don't make you any less likely to be the victim of violent crime, but they do significantly increase the possibility of you contracting ballistic lead poisoning.
-
Any discussion about gun control is immediately sidelined by a throng of cretins running around wailing "oh noes you want to ban our guns". But that's not what gun control is all about, and if you'd let yourself listen to the arguments as opposed to your fucking connugget shoulder aliens, you might possibly understand some of that.
How is it not? How is gun control not the banning of guns? Even if it is specific types, you are still talking about banning guns, or guns that have specific features, or magazines above X capacity. Can you please enumerate for me how "gun control" does not necessarily include banning guns?
From my point of view, I don't give a fuck if you own guns or not
Then STFU about it?
although I am almost certain you'd be safer if you didn't.
How? How would I be safer if I did not own guns?
I do believe that the arguments given for gun ownership are almost entirely specious.
Enjoyment, personal protection, admiration of their beauty and engineering? These are all specious arguments?
In most cases, you simply don't have any compelling need to own guns
In most cases, people have no compelling reason to own sports cars, SUVs, pickup trucks, large homes, air conditioning, private aircraft, large amounts of land, etc., etc., etc. That does not mean that we can't if we want to and have the means necessary to do so.
and almost certainly none that overrides the danger of owning them.
Let's nerf the world. Let's put everyone in foam suits and protect them from everything. No more private ownership of cars, or any vehicle that moves more rapidly than a brisk walk. No more hobbies that are more dangerous than scrapbooking. Scrapbooking is the limit. That is adventurous as any person needs to be.
They don't make you any safer
Depends. If someone were to break in to my home, it would allow me to defend myself and my family. That would make me safer.
That possibility is remote, but so is the possibility of a grease fire burning down my house, yet I have a fire extinguisher right outside the kitchen just in case.
There is not a high likelihood of my home being hit by a tornado, but we purchased a house with a basement just in case.
but they do significantly increase the possibility of you contracting ballistic lead poisoning.
Yes. Those guns are very likely to make their way on their own from locked storage in my home, load themselves, stalk me and kill me. That is a thing that will happen.
Feel free to trot out statistics from a gun control website. They are inconsequential to me. I am far more likely to die of an accident when I drive to the grocery store and that does not worry me.
Have you ever considered treatment for your irrational fear of guns? You seem phobic.
-
OK. Look. I just don't want to get into the gun control debate. I respect the validity of environments like certain parts of the US with looser gun controls, but where I live in The Netherlands I very much like the situation where they are more tightly controlled.
People may have interpreted my earlier statement as 'People should be free to not purchase guns, even if they are available'. That's not what I meant, and I expect few people disagree with that statement (the opposite would be 'Everyone should be forced to own guns').
-
OK. Look. I just don't want to get into the gun control debate.
No worries. If you don't want to get in to gun control debates, you might want to stay out of gun control debates. ;)
I have to say though, it sure as shit sounds like my interpretation of your earlier statement is more correct than
@tufty was getting on about.
-
No worries. If you don't want to get in to gun control debates, you might want to stay out of gun control debates.
Well, what I was getting into was the 'Jews with guns would have stopped the holocaust' bollocks.
-
Topic drift. It happens.
-
-
@fbmac said:
And they could change any of these laws before geting scary enough for an armed resistence to be formed.
Thankfully, the NRA-ILA exists.
Pro-tip: if you're going to form a fascist paradise, co-opt the likes of the NRA really early. Like that, they'll be too busy “enforcing their freedom” on everyone else to care that overall freedom has gone.
NB: Not saying that they're fascists, but they are a group that is particularly at danger of subversion into being fascistic. Indeed, if history is anything to go by, they're less resistant than more formal organisations like governments or the army, because private organisations are rightfully subject to less oversight.
-
Pro-tip: if you're going to form a fascist paradise, co-opt the likes of the NRA really early. Like that, they'll be too busy “enforcing their freedom” on everyone else to care that overall freedom has gone.
The best thing is it works for both the Right and the Left.
-
Not saying that they're fascists, but they are a group that is particularly at danger of subversion into being fascistic.
What about them makes them "particularly" at danger?
-
What about them makes them "particularly" at danger?
Larger than normal fraction of social conservatives. A belief among a substantial minority that guns are the core of how you protect rights. The fact that these sorts of societies were among the earliest that were subverted in fascistisation process experienced in Europe in the early part of the 20th century. I'm not claiming that the NRA is fascist. I'm claiming that if I was going to be evil and stage a fascist takeover of the USA, I'd subvert the NRA (and allied organisations) long before taking on the federal government so that the gun owners would be mostly cheering me on when I take their (non-2nd amendment) rights away.
Veterans associations would be another early target, if one was following the model of Germany and Italy a century ago.
-
Larger than normal fraction of social conservatives...The fact that these sorts of societies were among the earliest that were subverted in fascistisation process experienced in Europe in the early part of the 20th century.
Hmm...what I find particularly interesting about that is that support for the fascism of Europe in the 20th century came from the Progressives, i.e., the opposite of social conservatives. Which folk seem to be the most interested in fascist sort of stuff today, too.
Veterans associations would be another early target, if one was following the model of Germany and Italy a century ago.
I'm not sure that makes as much sense here. Especially as time goes on, the veteran pool is more volunteer than draftee.
-
Hmm...what I find particularly interesting about that is that support for the fascism of Europe in the 20th century came from the Progressives, i.e., the opposite of social conservatives. Which folk seem to be the most interested in fascist sort of stuff today, too.
There are times when you use words in ways that make me just wonder what you're talking about. In this case, the word “Progressive” (and its derivations) seems utterly alien to me. Mind you, I suspect I'd probably just label the same group “Radicals” so there's that. (I'm assuming that you'd describe Progressives as the people who are in favour of change as opposed to the people who prefer things to stay the same.)
-
In this case, the word “Progressive” (and its derivations) seems utterly alien to me.
It's an American thing. They were the ideological predecessors to modern American liberals, who have started using the Progressive label again now that "liberal" has become an epithet. Guys like Woodrow Wilson was a big time Progressive, though there were plenty of Republicans, too (and people like me will be happy to tell you about how the modern Republican party has too much Progressive thought in it).
These guys looked at fascism and communism and thought it was all splendid in the early 20th century. A big intellectual leader of the movement was Herbert Croly, who ran The New Republic. Guys like George Bernard Shaw fit right in with them.
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=1223I'm assuming that you'd describe Progressives as the people who are in favour of change as opposed to the people who prefer things to stay the same.
They like to think so, and in some ways that's true. But in others, they are nearly violently opposed. Try suggesting reform of, say, Social Security, and see what they do.
-
Judge Learned Hand
TIL that someone could actually have that as a name.
They like to think so, and in some ways that's true. But in others, they are nearly violently opposed.
It would depend on what sort of change you were proposing, I'd guess. Suggest spending more on handouts and I think they'd be in favour. ;)
Of course, what's actually going on is that progressive/radical/conservative labels aren't too useful other than to identify a particular group. The extent to which that group actually uses the intellectual ideals originally associated with that label is usually pretty risible. You can identify some things which divide the sides (e.g., there's often a split between “old money” and “new money”) but the labels actually used might as well be “stars” vs “stripes” for all the real meaning they have.
Nobody in politics usually actually cares about the poor of course.
-
Of course, what's actually going on is that progressive/radical/conservative labels aren't too useful other than to identify a particular group.
-
The extent to which that group actually uses the intellectual ideals originally associated with that label is usually pretty risible.
Names are meaningless in American politics. Today's Democrats are almost ideologically identical to the Republicans of fifty years ago.
-
Herbert Croly - Wikipedia
