Big Brother Steps In

[Amadeus]

It doesn't matter if I'm not as armed as the government. Neither are the insurgents and they haven't been rolled over. I wouldn't prohibit all bombs, particularly things the government currently claims are bombs, it's an aggregation problem. Megaton bombs and things with the capacity of taking out cities should probably be regulated. Though then again those too would likely just be prohibitively expensive. But I'm OK restricting both government and the people from chemical or biological weapons.

So we both agree with regulations, and a limit on the Second Amendment. I'm not criticizing your justification, since I agree with it.

 

[blaxshep]

How do you ban murder? You make laws and hope people follow them. If people think it is okay to stockpile poison bombs and rocket launchers for a possible government take over, they will likely exercise that right.

Poison grows everywhere so good luck with that.

 

[Ikari]

So we both agree with regulations, and a limit on the Second Amendment. I'm not criticizing your justification, since I agree with it.

Anything you restrict from the government you can restrict from the people. For instance, if you stripped the government of all assault rifles, you could restrict the People's access to assault rifles as well.

 

[Amadeus]

Anything you restrict from the government you can restrict from the people. For instance, if you stripped the government of all assault rifles, you could restrict the People's access to assault rifles as well.

I believe in arming the troops with the best equipment, since they are on the front lines...

 

[blaxshep]

Anything you restrict from the government you can restrict from the people. For instance, if you stripped the government of all assault rifles, you could restrict the People's access to assault rifles as well.

But the government kills people by the thousands they need assault rifles. You just want to kill your attacker so a muzzle loader will be all you need.

 

[blaxshep]

I believe in arming the troops with the best equipment, since they are on the front lines...

So you support killing people just not people being able to defend themselves?

 

[Spartacus FPV]

Owning a gun doesn't negate fear. It is a false sense of security.

False sense of security? Tell that to everyone who has used on in self defense and saved their life. Tell that to police officers. Oh the naivety here...

I don't wish to be a victim, I just won't arm myself unless I'm in a war zone. The chances of surviving with a gun are not much better than surviving without a gun, all things being equal (which they are usually not, for the victim).

We have cities with worse body counts than most current warzones, worse if you live near Mexico and have to deal w/ the cartels.

I don't have to worry about guns violence much where I live.

Oh well that explains it, how nice for you :roll:

The rest of us live in reality, so stop trying to limit our 2nd Amendment rights because we need them.

 

[Amadeus]

So you support killing people just not people being able to defend themselves?

Quote me on this allegation.

 

[Amadeus]

False sense of security? Tell that to everyone who has used on in self defense and saved their life. Tell that to police officers. Oh the naivety here...

I can also point to examples of people acting out of haste, and unjustly shooting strangers who entered their property. However, my argument is not against people using guns for protection, as I've stated many times. It is entirely within your right to do so.

 

[Ikari]

I believe in arming the troops with the best equipment, since they are on the front lines...

Well I believe in heavily restricting the size and use of our military and only using it when our sovereignty is threatened. But allowing the government use of an army has risks and if our front line troops get the best equipment, than so do our citizens. As they too are the front line, but against government aggressiveness and tyranny.

 

[Amadeus]

Well I believe in heavily restricting the size and use of our military and only using it when our sovereignty is threatened. But allowing the government use of an army has risks and if our front line troops get the best equipment, than so do our citizens. As they too are the front line, but against government aggressiveness and tyranny.

Did you just compare right-wing gun enthusiasts to troops who are dying on the front lines? Geez, even I find that offensive.

 

[Ikari]

Did you just compare right-wing gun enthusiasts to troops who are dying on the front lines? Geez, even I find that offensive.

No. I compared the duties of a free people to the duties of our military troops.

I find your wild accusations and ample use of hyperbole and dishonesty in argument offensive.

 

[Amadeus]

No. I compared the duties of a free people to the duties of our military troops.

I find your wild accusations and ample use of hyperbole and dishonesty in argument offensive.

Show me where I used hyperbole. You said, paraphrased, 'Both the troops and gun enthusiasts are on the front lines, and should be similarly equipped.'

 

[SMTA]

Quote me on this allegation.

Okay!

I believe in arming the troops with the best equipment, since they are on the front lines...

Arm the troops, but not the people? Very bad for the people.

What I'm saying is if you maximize the Second Amendment by striping all regulations on all weapons, you are creating a situation in which these weapons (including poison and bombs) are accessible to very fallible humans. Thus, you create (or advocate for) a situation that you now have to protect yourself from.

The military is run by humans more fallible than American citizens exercising their 2A rights.

Owning a gun doesn't negate fear. It is a false sense of security.

So citizens should not carry guns, but the military can?
Nope.

 

[Ikari]

Show me where I used hyperbole. You said, paraphrased, 'Both the troops and gun enthusiasts are on the front lines, and should be similarly equipped.'

I didn't say "gun enthusiasts" I said the citizens, the People are the front line in fighting government aggression and tyranny. You're trying to turn it into a partisan statement to apply your hyperbole and hysteria so you can make dumbass statements like "you're comparing right-wing gun enthusiasts to the troops"

I was doing no such thing, the claim is hyperbole and dishonesty. I compared the duty of a free people (which is to be the front line against government aggression and tyranny) to the duty of the troops. It's a factual statement for a free Republic.

 

[Amadeus]

Okay!
So citizens should not carry guns, but the military can?

I asked you to quote, and while you did quote me, you failed to prove the allegation.

 

[SMTA]

Show me where I used hyperbole. You said, paraphrased, 'Both the troops and gun enthusiasts are on the front lines, and should be similarly equipped.'

That's a lie, and you know it.

Read it again.

Ikari;1061791489]Well I believe in heavily restricting the size and use of our military and only using it when our sovereignty is threatened. But allowing the government use of an army has risks and if our front line troops get the best equipment, than so do our citizens. As they too are the front line, but against government aggressiveness and tyranny.

 

[Amadeus]

I didn't say "gun enthusiasts" I said the citizens, the People are the front line in fighting government aggression and tyranny. You're trying to turn it into a partisan statement to apply your hyperbole and hysteria so you can make dumbass statements like "you're comparing right-wing gun enthusiasts to the troops"

Please identify the casualties your Second Amendment militia has faced while on the front lines. Lets start with a death toll, then we can get into amputations and psychological trauma.

I will refrain from calling you a gun enthusiast.

 

[Spartacus FPV]

Please identify the casualties your Second Amendment militia has faced while on the front lines. Lets start with a death toll, then we can get into amputations and psychological trauma.

I will refrain from calling you a gun enthusiast.

Why does someone have to die in order to be defending my 2nd Amendment rights? Do they really have to be casualties?

 

[Amadeus]

Why does someone have to die in order to be defending my 2nd Amendment rights? Do they really have to be casualties?

I wasn't the one comparing a real war to a hypothetical, ideological war.

 

[Ikari]

Please identify the casualties your Second Amendment militia has faced while on the front lines. Lets start with a death toll, then we can get into amputations and psychological trauma.

I will refrain from calling you a gun enthusiast.

That has nothing to do with what I said. This is nothing more than deflection. From the revolution to the various smaller revolts we had, citizens of a free Republic have the duty and obligation to counter government aggression and tyranny. The fact that we use our military extensively in interventionist, imperial policy does not distract from that.

 

[Spartacus FPV]

I wasn't the one comparing a real war to a hypothetical, ideological war.

Riiight, that excuses your error. Because the government never engages in ideological/hypothetical wars (on drugs, terror, poverty etc...) :roll:

Ikari's point about the people fighting tyranny remains valid despite your silly deflection. I in my communications with my leaders and rallies am an example of the people fighting tyranny, as are all like me engaged in the political process WITHOUT violence.

Also, please change your avatar you aren't worthy of the Hitchens association.

 

[Amadeus]

That has nothing to do with what I said. This is nothing more than deflection. From the revolution to the various smaller revolts we had, citizens of a free Republic have the duty and obligation to counter government aggression and tyranny. The fact that we use our military extensively in interventionist, imperial policy does not distract from that.

Would you stop accusing me of deflections to compensate for your own sloppy arguments? Please and thanks.

 

[Amadeus]

Ikari's point about the people fighting tyranny remains valid despite your silly deflection. I in my communications with my leaders and rallies am an example of the people fighting tyranny, as are all like me engaged in the political process WITHOUT violence.

Seems like that should be your focus, then, rather than a convoluted arms race with the government.

Also, please change your avatar you aren't worthy of the Hitchens association.

I think not.

 

[Ikari]

Would you stop accusing me of deflections to compensate for your own sloppy arguments? Please and thanks.

When you stop deflecting with statements that do not address my arguments, then I shall.