Big Brother Steps In

[blaxshep]

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

They wouldn't be dying on the front lines if they were disarmed they would be safe at home.

It is astounding that you support governments having guns. Governments have killed hundreds of millions of people throughout history.

But the people having guns to defend themselves, well that is all bad. :cuckoo:

 

[Amadeus]

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

I guess supporting your right to bear arms is not enough. I have to support your right to a military arsenal.

 

[blaxshep]

I guess supporting your right to bear arms is not enough. I have to support your right to a military arsenal.

No you only support the government's right to kill as many people as they can, funny how people like you will say things like the only purpose a gun has is to kill people yet you support the military being the only ones with "Assault Weapons" when the only real purpose of the military is to kill people.

 

[Ikari]

I guess supporting your right to bear arms is not enough. I have to support your right to a military arsenal.

No, but if you're going to try to argue against me, it will behoove you to actually address my arguments, not use hyperbole and deflection to avoid the argument all together.

BTW, this post of yours is another example of hyperbole and deflection as I never said you had to agree with me. Merely that you should address the argument itself instead of making things up.

 

[Amadeus]

No you only support the government's right to kill as many people as they can, funny how people like you will say things like the only purpose a gun has is to kill people yet you support the military being the only ones with "Assault Weapons" when the only real purpose of the military is to kill people.

The US military has certainly been abused over the years, but that is not the fault of the people on the front lines.

 

[Amadeus]

No, but if you're going to try to argue against me, it will behoove you to actually address my arguments, not use hyperbole and deflection to avoid the argument all together.

I'm addressing your arguments, you just don't like how I address (expose) them.

BTW, this post of yours is another example of hyperbole and deflection as I never said you had to agree with me. Merely that you should address the argument itself instead of making things up.

Stop whining.

 

[Ikari]

I'm addressing your arguments, you just don't like how I address (expose) them.



Stop whining.

You don't expose anything. You may think you have, but you didn't since you didn't address the argument. If you want me to stop calling out your intellectually dishonest argument strategy, then you're going to have to first start addressing arguments in an intellectually honest manner.

 

[Amadeus]

You don't expose anything. You may think you have, but you didn't since you didn't address the argument. If you want me to stop calling out your intellectually dishonest argument strategy, then you're going to have to first start addressing arguments in an intellectually honest manner.

I'm actually not too concerned with what you call me. Sticks and stones. I was asking for your own benefit. If you can point out where I was intellectually dishonest or hyperbolic, I will apologize. Just be prepared for an appropriate response, should you fail to do so.

 

[Ikari]

I'm actually not too concerned with what you call me. Sticks and stones. I was asking for your own benefit. If you can point out where I was intellectually dishonest or hyperbolic, I will apologize. Just be prepared for an appropriate response, should you fail to do so.

It's already been pointed out in this thread.

 

[Amadeus]

It's already been pointed out in this thread.

I could not find anything to support the allegation of intellectual dishonesty. You attempted to justify the comparison you made, but that doesn't mean my request for validation of the comparison was deflective, dishonest, or hyperbolic. I'm not swayed that the comparison between an actual war and the Second Amendment hypothetical war is valid, and thus I don't think there is justification for being similarly armed.

 

[Ikari]

I could not find anything to support the allegation of intellectual dishonesty. You attempted to justify the comparison you made, but that doesn't mean my request for validation of the comparison was deflective, dishonest, or hyperbolic. I'm not swayed that the comparison between an actual war and the Second Amendment hypothetical war is valid, and thus I don't think there is justification for being similarly armed.

You make very convenient definitions for yourself.

 

[Mycroft]

I could not find anything to support the allegation of intellectual dishonesty. You attempted to justify the comparison you made, but that doesn't mean my request for validation of the comparison was deflective, dishonest, or hyperbolic. I'm not swayed that the comparison between an actual war and the Second Amendment hypothetical war is valid, and thus I don't think there is justification for being similarly armed.

Now, see? That's the thing. You think there should be some justification for the common citizen to be armed at least as well as the military. The Constitution, however, makes no such distinction nor imposes no such requirement.

Perhaps you wish to change the Constitution?

 

[Amadeus]

Now, see? That's the thing. You think there should be some justification for the common citizen to be armed at least as well as the military.

Yes, I do. Thank you for pointing that out.

 

[blaxshep]

Yes, I do. Thank you for pointing that out.

You quoted the wrong part, you obviously meant to say yes I do to:

Perhaps you wish to change the Constitution?

 

[Amadeus]

You quoted the wrong part, you obviously meant to say yes I do to:

Ikari himself wants to change the Constitution, so I guess I'm in good company.

 

[Ikari]

Ikari himself wants to change the Constitution, so I guess I'm in good company.

Do I? I just want to follow it and properly constrain government to it, as was intended. But continue making things up if it makes you feel better.

 

[Amadeus]

Do I? I just want to follow it and properly constrain government to it, as was intended. But continue making things up if it makes you feel better.

You want to limit the Second Amendment so that the civilian militia and the government are equally armed. After all, your 'soldiers' should have the best equipment on the 'front lines'.

 

[Ikari]

You want to limit the Second Amendment so that the civilian militia and the government are equally armed. After all, your 'soldiers' should have the best equipment on the 'front lines'.

At least equally, the People can outarm the government. But what I want, and I think you know this, isn't a restriction of the 2nd, but an expansion of it back to original bounds. While I would accept restrictions to doomsday devices, in the end it's not that big of a deal as such weapons would be prohibitively expensive.

But yes, if you did disarm the government, I would entertain notions of restricting access to guns. But not before that point. As such it's not 100% accurate to say I want to limit or change the Second Amendment because I am actually pushing to have it realized and recognized in greater context than current restriction allows. As such, I'm actually looking to go the other way. But I think you knew that wasn't an accurate comment already.

 

[Amadeus]

At least equally, the People can outarm the government. But what I want, and I think you know this, isn't a restriction of the 2nd, but an expansion of it back to original bounds. While I would accept restrictions to doomsday devices, in the end it's not that big of a deal as such weapons would be prohibitively expensive.

Bombs, grenades, poison, etc., are cheap. And if militias start to form, what is to stop them from pooling their resources and acquiring more expensive equipment?

But yes, if you did disarm the government, I would entertain notions of restricting access to guns. But not before that point. As such it's not 100% accurate to say I want to limit or change the Second Amendment because I am actually pushing to have it realized and recognized in greater context than current restriction allows. As such, I'm actually looking to go the other way. But I think you knew that wasn't an accurate comment already.

I don't know what the hell you're talking about, to be honest. It's gobbledegook gibberish. Will the Libertarian militia patrol the streets and defend the country, once the government is disarmed?

 

[Ikari]

Bombs, grenades, poison, etc., are cheap. And if militias start to form, what is to stop them from pooling their resources and acquiring more expensive equipment?

Cheap? Hell no. It costs us millions of dollars for a missile or a nuke. Biological and chemical weapons are super expensive to produce and store. Sure a grenade is "cheap", but also limited in destructive ability. It's no MOABs. If militias or private individuals begin amassing private armies, we can discuss potential limitations. But there's no need to throw them in now when they aren't an effect.

I don't know what the hell you're talking about, to be honest. It's gobbledegook gibberish. Will the Libertarian militia patrol the streets and defend the country, once the government is disarmed?

I'm sure in such a hypothetical, lots of people could "patrol" the streets, including cops (as they do now). But in the complete absence of guns, guns would not be needed.

 

[Mycroft]

Yes, I do. Thank you for pointing that out.

But you won't answer my question?

 

[Amadeus]

Cheap? Hell no. It costs us millions of dollars for a missile or a nuke. Biological and chemical weapons are super expensive to produce and store. Sure a grenade is "cheap", but also limited in destructive ability. It's no MOABs. If militias or private individuals begin amassing private armies, we can discuss potential limitations. But there's no need to throw them in now when they aren't an effect.

Interesting that you would even contemplate the bolded text. Very interesting.

I'm sure in such a hypothetical, lots of people could "patrol" the streets, including cops (as they do now). But in the complete absence of guns, guns would not be needed.

Sounds like a plan.

 

[Ikari]

Interesting that you would even contemplate the bolded text. Very interesting.

I'll contemplate and entertain a lot of arguments, even if I don't ultimately agree with them.

 

[blaxshep]

Interesting that you would even contemplate the bolded text. Very interesting.

Sounds like a plan.

As long as only the government is allowed to have knives.

 

[Kal'Stang]

Sure, but you cannot argue the benefits of a gun (it's lethal efficiency), and at the same time try to downplay them.

I'm not down playing them. It's lethal efficiency is quite good. Not perfect, but definiately good. I was just showing that there are more ways to kill a person than a gun and if a criminal is intent on killing somone then they will whether they have a gun or not. For instance, a criminal can buy a bow with no background checks or any red tape. They can go to any walmart and buy one in the hunting section and walk out with it in about 5 minutes. And they can be just as deadly as a gun with practice. They can even buy a pump action or air cartridge BB gun and those can be just as deadly as a .22 rifle. In fact they could just use their natural weapons, the one that humankind has had for thousands of years. His/her hands. That is why I say that if a criminal is not trust worthy enough to have their full rights then they should not be let out of prison to begin with.

The reason I am against today's gun control is real simple. It does nothing to fix the actual problem. It is at BEST a band aid fix....if that. We need to focus on the reasons for crime period...be it a crime committed with a gun or not. Fix those problems and the only crime that there will be is crimes of passion. And we need to do it in such a way as to not interfere with a persons inherant rights. Or do you contend that guns make people do bad things? If so then it would be quite interesting to see your reasoning for it.