The Flat Earth Society
Other Discussion Boards => Philosophy, Religion & Society => Topic started by: garygreen on August 09, 2016, 11:02:32 PM
-
It'd be stupid a talk down to a politician you actively donate money to in order to support legislation and deals relevant to your company.
Ultimately, this is just the name of the game. You talk good about people you want something from and you talk bad about people you want to defeat. e.g. Bernie said Hillary was unfit to be POTUS and then endorsed her a few months later. Arguing from a stance of "well that's hypocritical" is nonsense. Bernie wanted Hillary to lose and now he wants her to win. It's no different for Trump.
that would matter to me if he didn't endorse so many other mutually exclusive policy proposals and ideologies.
also:
https://youtu.be/EcxkkrNSv-4
so, to be clear, trump has no trouble suggesting that the democratically elected president of the united states should be either a) shot, or b) overthrown, for doing her constitutionally prescribed duties. fuck that, and fuck him.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/10/us/politics/donald-trump-hillary-clinton.html
“If she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks,” Mr. Trump said, as the crowd began to boo. He quickly added: “Although the Second Amendment people — maybe there is, I don’t know.”
The Trump campaign released a statement insisting opaquely that Mr. Trump had been referring to the “power of unification.”
“Second Amendment people have amazing spirit and are tremendously unified, which gives them great political power,” said Mr. Trump’s spokesman, Jason Miller. “And this year, they will be voting in record numbers, and it won’t be for Hillary Clinton, it will be for Donald Trump.”
what a piece of shit. i want to hear more about how honest donald trump is.
-
so, to be clear, trump has no trouble suggesting that the democratically elected president of the united states should be either a) shot, or b) overthrown, for doing her constitutionally prescribed duties. fuck that, and fuck him.
The second amendment can and will be protected by the second amendment. If she starts genuinely trying to support the removal of the second amendment or other people who want to remove it, she's going to regret it and so will everyone that agrees with her.
However, she's smart enough to not do any of that, at least not outright. She'll salami tactics the hell out of it.
I consider suppression of any of the first ten amendments a direct attack on my rights, which no man, woman, or hildebeast will be allowed to do unabated.
-
Unless enacted through official amending procedures? Or are you Alex Jones for realsies?
-
Unless enacted through official amending procedures? Or are you Alex Jones for realsies?
Why would it matter if it was enacted through official procedures? If Congress officially removed the first amendment, would you suddenly stop talking and just nod your head whenever the POTUS speaks?
-
Hey guys, remember when the Trump supporters here were so OUTRAGED and HORRIFIED by the idea that Hillary and the media were trying to indirectly associate Trump and therefore get him assassinated? It starts around here (http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=3243.800) and goes on for a few pages. Good times.
-
so, to be clear, trump has no trouble suggesting that the democratically elected president of the united states should be either a) shot, or b) overthrown, for doing her constitutionally prescribed duties. fuck that, and fuck him.
The second amendment can and will be protected by the second amendment. If she starts genuinely trying to support the removal of the second amendment or other people who want to remove it, she's going to regret it and so will everyone that agrees with her.
wow.
hey what's that word for when you use violence or the threat of violence to affect political change? isn't there a word for that?
-
[07:18] <Rushy> it's time for war
[07:18] <Rushy> The imperium will fight for the god emperor
[07:18] <George> Another hypocritical swerve from you
[07:18] <Rushy> how so?
[07:21] <George> You were ranting about Hillary and the media supposedly trying to get Trump assassinated a couple of months ago
[07:21] <George> By the (very tortured) logic that comparing someone to Hitler is a special kind of incendiary incitement that goes beyond conventional mudslinging in politics
[07:22] <Rushy> the ideas aren't equivalent because Trump hasn't suggested the removal of rights
[07:23] <Rushy> furthermore, an argument from hypocrisy isn't an argument
[07:23] <George> Oh, is hinting that a rival should be assassinated permissible if they plan to remove our rights?
[07:23] <Rushy> How many times must this be told to you?
[07:23] <Rushy> No, it isn't permissable
[07:24] <Rushy> what Trump did was wrong, but actually assassinating people can be justified for rights removal
[07:24] <Rushy> e.g. if people wanted to assassinate trump because "torture goes against human rights" then that would be justifiable
[07:25] <George> I think it's an appropriate counter-argument to the idea that Trump is going to be a revolutionary figure who'll shake things up and be unlike any politician currently in office
[07:25] <Rushy> but saying "he wants to deport all the mexicans, HITLER!" is not justifiable
[07:25] <Rushy> likewise "hillary will raise my taxes" is not justifiable
[07:25] <Rushy> "hillary wants to suppress the 2nd amendment" is
wow.
hey what's that word for when you use violence or the threat of violence to affect political change? isn't there a word for that?
Considering the removal of basic human rights a "political change" is a little disingenuous.
-
Considering the removal of basic human rights a "political change" is a little disingenuous.
equating the legal nomination of a supreme court justice by a democratically elected president, as per the directive of the constitution itself, and the nominee's subsequent confirmation by a democratically elected senate, to "the removal of basic human rights," is utter nonsense.
that you attached it to a thinly-veiled threat against "anyone who agrees with her" is totally fucked up. that's how terrorists and fascists deal with shit.
-
equating the legal nomination of a supreme court justice by a democratically elected president, as per the directive of the constitution itself, and the nominee's subsequent confirmation by a democratically elected senate, to "the removal of basic human rights," is utter nonsense.
that you attached it to a thinly-veiled threat against "anyone who agrees with her" is totally fucked up. that's how terrorists and fascists deal with shit.
The Constitution, Supreme Court, etc. is not where my rights come from. It really doesn't matter what they say in the grand scheme of reality.
that's how terrorists and fascists deal with shit.
Fascists use violence to bring about change, not to stop it from occurring. Fascist governments thrive on the ability to violently control their citizenry. This is why a fascist government could never work in modern day America. "Only the government should have guns" is a fascism token.
-
Nobody is taking away the Second Amendment. Very few mainstream politicians want to do it - Hillary certainly doesn't - and even those that do would find it an impossible task. Even if they could find the legislative support, even if they could find the judicial support, they couldn't put it into practice. People won't surrender their guns. The police won't go door to door confiscating their guns. For better or worse, guns are ingrained into American culture, and they will always be a part of it. Every politician, no matter their politics, knows this. And every American should know this just by using their common sense. Yes, there are a number of policies on guns that liberals and conservatives disagree on, and it's fine to take that into account when voting. But please don't fall for the age-old lie of "omg dere taking our guns!!!!!" It will never, never happen.
-
Nobody is taking away the Second Amendment. Very few mainstream politicians want to do it - Hillary certainly doesn't - and even those that do would find it an impossible task. Even if they could find the legislative support, even if they could find the judicial support, they couldn't put it into practice. People won't surrender their guns. The police won't go door to door confiscating their guns. For better or worse, guns are ingrained into American culture, and they will always be a part of it. Every politician, no matter their politics, knows this. And every American should know this just by using their common sense. Yes, there are a number of policies on guns that liberals and conservatives disagree on, and it's fine to take that into account when voting. But please don't fall for the age-old lie of "omg dere taking our guns!!!!!" It will never, never happen.
However, [Hillary is] smart enough to not [remove the second amendment], at least not outright. She'll salami tactics the hell out of it.
New York and California are the salami slices we've already seen. I'd hate to see what's next.
-
Unless enacted through official amending procedures? Or are you Alex Jones for realsies?
Why would it matter if it was enacted through official procedures? If Congress officially removed the first amendment, would you suddenly stop talking and just nod your head whenever the POTUS speaks?
No, but a reasonable amendment could be reasonable, he said tautologically.
-
Rushy, I know you're a staunch Trump supporter. Do you agree with him that somebody should assassinate Hillary?
-
Trump very clearly stated to his followers that a Hillary presidency would liberal judges on the court and they would repeal the 2nd amendment.
He has no idea how amendments work. OR his followers don't. Or both. No amount of court appointments would repeal the 2nd amendment. You can't make an amendment unconstitutional. Thus, nothing Hillary will do could remove the 2nd amendment.
The ONLY way is to repeal it via congress. Yet Trump would have you think its easier than it is.
As for the salami slices argument.
Yeah, lets compare Constitutional Amendmemts to state laws. I'm sure they're the same deep down, right?
-
>Trump suggests that 2nd amendment supporters could decide the election
>every liberal immediately thinks of assassination
Have we reached Poe's law yet?
-
>Trump suggests that 2nd amendment supporters could decide the election
>every liberal immediately thinks of assassination
Have we reached Poe's law yet?
Trump is very direct in his meaning. And always goes for the fastest solution.
Assassinations would be the quickest and surest way to make sure Hillary loses.
And had the conversation been reversed where Hillary said something like that, you can bet Trump would be calling it an assassination attempt.
-
Nobody is taking away the Second Amendment. Very few mainstream politicians want to do it - Hillary certainly doesn't - and even those that do would find it an impossible task. Even if they could find the legislative support, even if they could find the judicial support, they couldn't put it into practice. People won't surrender their guns. The police won't go door to door confiscating their guns. For better or worse, guns are ingrained into American culture, and they will always be a part of it. Every politician, no matter their politics, knows this. And every American should know this just by using their common sense. Yes, there are a number of policies on guns that liberals and conservatives disagree on, and it's fine to take that into account when voting. But please don't fall for the age-old lie of "omg dere taking our guns!!!!!" It will never, never happen.
You're absolutely correct, but it seems like you're dancing around the subject of why it can never happen. "People won't surrender their guns" is a good start, but how exactly would this "not surrendering their guns" look? Trump simply put it into words, and not very direct ones at that. The "Second Amendment people" would "do something". It is a threat, but that's by design of the Amendment itself. And it's not against Clinton, but a hypothetical Clinton administration in the unlikely world where they actually try to take the guns.
-
>Trump suggests that 2nd amendment supporters could decide the election
Considering he was talking about a hypothetical where Clinton won the election this actually requires more tap-dancing. I mean, why not just encourage -all- his supporters to decide the election. What, other than the enthusiasm for bearing arms, makes 2nd amendment supporters worth singling out?
>every liberal immediately thinks of assassination
Because Trump has a history of saying terrible shit.
Have we reached Poe's law yet?
Yes, when Hillary was called Hitler by conservatives and Berners.
-
Considering he was talking about a hypothetical where Clinton won the election this actually requires more tap-dancing. I mean, why not just encourage -all- his supporters to decide the election. What, other than the enthusiasm for bearing arms, makes 2nd amendment supporters worth singling out?
He was specifically talking about the second amendment at the time, was he not?
Because Trump has a history of saying terrible shit.
So that means everything he says in the future must be terrible. Sure.
Yes, when Hillary was called Hitler by conservatives and Berners.
It happened first with Trump, but I guess that doesn't count?
-
Considering he was talking about a hypothetical where Clinton won the election this actually requires more tap-dancing. I mean, why not just encourage -all- his supporters to decide the election. What, other than the enthusiasm for bearing arms, makes 2nd amendment supporters worth singling out?
He was specifically talking about the second amendment at the time, was he not?
Yeah, basically he said, "If Hillary wins the election, she will appoint judges to take away the 2nd Amendment and there is nothing you can do to stop her. Well, maybe 2nd amendment supporters can stop her."
Does he explicitly say "assassinate her"? No, but we live in a world where implications are a thing and considering his whole premise is that she has already won the election how should we infer that he is talking about voting against her? Why should we think he is redundantly appealing to his voter base to vote against her. Why shouldn't we think that Trump has made yet another terrible comment?
Don't get me wrong, this belongs more in a YouTube compilation than as front page news, but it is not an unreasonable inference to make. I don't think he was asking people to assassinate her either, I think he was trying to be funny in a dick head Trump sort of way.
Because Trump has a history of saying terrible shit.
So that means everything he says in the future must be terrible. Sure.
I'm saying we shouldn't be surprised when someone who has said terrible things, goes on to say terrible things. His history makes it more likely that he would say terrible things in the future, than a person who does not have such a history.
Yes, when Hillary was called Hitler by conservatives and Berners.
It happened first with Trump, but I guess that doesn't count?
No, it just means I wasn't aware of it. Point being, it would be surprising if we hadn't already crossed in to Poe's Law territory a loooooong time ago considering the tenor of this election.
-
No, it just means I wasn't aware of it.
Are you seriously saying you weren't aware of the "omg trump = literally hitler" crowd?
-
No, it just means I wasn't aware of it.
Are you seriously saying you weren't aware of the "omg trump = literally hitler" crowd?
I wasn't aware of it specifically, no. In retrospect, I am not surprised, in fact it gives me ease to know that people are consistent.
-
Rushy, I know you're a staunch Trump supporter. Do you agree with him that somebody should assassinate Hillary?
???
Trump didn't say someone should assassinate Hillary.
-
I wasn't aware of it specifically, no.
Fair enough. I guess it surprises me since my social media bubble (largely dominated by left-leaning white people) is full of this stuff. Some of it is just people calling Trump Hitler for shits and gigs, but then some of it insists on drawing parallels between the current situation in the world and the run-up to World War II.
-
equating the legal nomination of a supreme court justice by a democratically elected president, as per the directive of the constitution itself, and the nominee's subsequent confirmation by a democratically elected senate, to "the removal of basic human rights," is utter nonsense.
that you attached it to a thinly-veiled threat against "anyone who agrees with her" is totally fucked up. that's how terrorists and fascists deal with shit.
The Constitution, Supreme Court, etc. is not where my rights come from. It really doesn't matter what they say in the grand scheme of reality.
oh ok. so you support the use of violence against democratic, legal, and constitutional actions that do not conform to your particular conception of what your rights are and how those documents should be interpreted; and, as you said, against anyone who agrees with them. that's what terrorists do.
"If she starts genuinely trying to support the removal of the second amendment or other people who want to remove it, she's going to regret it and so will everyone that agrees with her."
that's fucking terrorism. you're literally threatening to do violence to me if i support a candidate who tries to support a nominee who doesn't agree with your interpretation of the second amendment. whoops, sorry, i apparently only have to agree with her to make it on the "you're going to regret it" list.
fuck you.
>Trump suggests that 2nd amendment supporters could decide the election
why would it be a "horrible day" if second amendment supporters decided the election? and which election is taking place after the supreme court nomination, for which there is "nothing you can do," that second amendment supports could affect?
-
why would it be a "horrible day" if second amendment supporters decided the election? and which election is taking place after the supreme court nomination, for which there is "nothing you can do," that second amendment supports could affect?
It wouldn't be, and there is no election.
Can you clarify your line of questioning, please? I seriously don't understand what you're trying to get at.
-
It wouldn't be
Trump himself said it would be - I presume that's what garygreen is asking about.
So here, I just wrote this down today. Hillary wants to raise taxes -- it's a comparison. I want to lower them. Hillary wants to expand regulations, which she does bigly. Can you believe that? I will reduce them very, very substantially, could be as much as 70 to 75 percent. Hillary wants to shut down energy production. I want to expand it. Lower electric bills, folks! Hillary wants to abolish, essentially abolish, the Second Amendment. By the way, and if she gets to pick --if she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is, I don't know. But I'll tell you what, that will be a horrible day, if -- if -- Hillary gets to put her judges in.
-
He specifically mentions that it would be a horrible day if Hillary gets to put her judges in, which wouldn't happen if she didn't get elected. Likewise, if you choose to believe Trump is implying she might get assassinated, the same holds true: it will only be a "horrible day" if the second amendment people don't get involved at all. So what relevancy do they bear in this scenario?
-
in retrospect i agree the horrible day is in reference to hillary's potential sc nominee, but in the other bit i don't see how he could possibly be talking about second amendment supporters as a voting block.
"...if she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is, I don't know."
if there's "nothing you can do" after she picks her judges, then i don't understand how he could be talking about voting blocks.
-
>Trump suggests that 2nd amendment supporters could decide the election
>every liberal immediately thinks of assassination
Have we reached Poe's law yet?
It seems like much less of a stretch than saying that comparing Trump to Hitler is equivalent to calling for his assassination, yet that is what Trump supporters were saying just a short time ago. ..has Scott Adams released any statements about how dangerous the world will be with Trump as president?
-
in retrospect i agree the horrible day is in reference to hillary's potential sc nominee, but in the other bit i don't see how he could possibly be talking about second amendment supporters as a voting block.
"...if she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is, I don't know."
if there's "nothing you can do" after she picks her judges, then i don't understand how he could be talking about voting blocks.
Doesn't say that it would be after she picks her judges, but fair enough - maybe it's more likely he's talking about the collective lobbying power of second amendment supporters dissuading her, but I still find the notion that he's talking about assassination absolutely ludicrous. It seems to me like a complete fabrication by the left to paint all gun owners as potential murderers.
-
Trump explains it as the 2nd amendment people are very motivated.
And they are. Take their guns, they will kill you.
But Trump has to craft his message around buzz words that evoke specific emotions in his base.
Saying "Hillary Clinton wants to errode gun rights to make it very difficult to obtain guns. But those who support the 2nd amendment are strong and proud and I believe have the political force to stop her." Is too many words, too complex, and not angry enough.
-
Doesn't say that it would be after she picks her judges, but fair enough - maybe it's more likely he's talking about the collective lobbying power of second amendment supporters dissuading her, but I still find the notion that he's talking about assassination absolutely ludicrous. It seems to me like a complete fabrication by the left to paint all gun owners as potential murderers.
That is you reading in to things unless you have seen something I haven't. Every news report I have seen is about what a boor Trump is, not what the Gun Right's Supporters would do in such an instance.
-
I don't think it's that well thought-through. It's the kind of off-the-cuff remark - a joke - which, if said in the bar, wouldn't raise an eyebrow, but when you're making speeches in front of millions, thousands of whom are very angry and armed, that kind of flippancy could be dangerous. It's further evidence that this man doesn't have the subtlety necessary to hold the office of president.
-
Doesn't say that it would be after she picks her judges, but fair enough - maybe it's more likely he's talking about the collective lobbying power of second amendment supporters dissuading her, but I still find the notion that he's talking about assassination absolutely ludicrous. It seems to me like a complete fabrication by the left to paint all gun owners as potential murderers.
That is you reading in to things unless you have seen something I haven't. Every news report I have seen is about what a boor Trump is, not what the Gun Right's Supporters would do in such an instance.
Of course they don't say it directly, but they do want to create the mental association "gun owner = potential assassin" in the reader. Trump never said anything about assassination, so the idea that these "second amendment people" could possibly assassinate Hillary must have come from the reporters themselves.
-
He didn't say it directly, but it's certainly implied.
As I say, not as a serious suggestion, more like the kind of stupid joke you'd make between mates, but when it's a part of a presidential candidates' speech, it should raise eyebrows about his judgement.
-
oh ok. so you support the use of violence against democratic, legal, and constitutional actions that do not conform to your particular conception of what your rights are and how those documents should be interpreted; and, as you said, against anyone who agrees with them. that's what terrorists do.
"If she starts genuinely trying to support the removal of the second amendment or other people who want to remove it, she's going to regret it and so will everyone that agrees with her."
that's fucking terrorism. you're literally threatening to do violence to me if i support a candidate who tries to support a nominee who doesn't agree with your interpretation of the second amendment. whoops, sorry, i apparently only have to agree with her to make it on the "you're going to regret it" list.
fuck you.
You want to take rights from people "legally" and then you get upset they might have a negative reaction.
The difference here is your would rather other people do violence for you. You want the government by tyranny of majority to coerce a large section of the population into giving up basic rights. The very idea that your own actions may result in an unfavorable outcome is somehow disgusting to you. I'm pretty amazed.
Politics aren't a game and I don't treat them like one. The people who continue on this rights-suppressive route are going to receive the backlash for doing so.
-
You want to take rights from people "legally" and then you get upset they might have a negative reaction.
The difference here is your would rather other people do violence for you. You want the government by tyranny of majority to coerce a large section of the population into giving up basic rights. The very idea that your own actions may result in an unfavorable outcome is somehow disgusting to you. I'm pretty amazed.
i want the president to be lawful and constitutional. that means nominating a justice. it's a rule. i also want citizens to be lawful and constitutional. that means not resorting to violence simply because the party you don't like nominated a justice you don't like.
in case you haven't noticed, people disagree about rights. there is no universally accepted interpretation of either rights in general or constitutional amendments in particular. all you're fundamentally saying is that if the courts don't agree with your particular interpretation of the quran the constitution, then you're going to make them pay.
again, really can't emphasize this enough: that's how terrorists deal with political differences. "if i don't get what i'm entitled to politically, then i'm going to hurt you."
Politics aren't a game and I don't treat them like one. The people who continue on this rights-suppressive route are going to receive the backlash for doing so.
rights talk doesn't disgust me. i love rights. like the right to agree with anyone i want to, have any opinion i want to, supports any candidate i want to, and value any public policy i want to. and the right of the president to do what the constitution says presidents are supposed to do, and what senates are supposed to do, and what courts are supposed to do.
i'm not on the side of 'everybody better do things my way or get shot' or whatever other internet tough guy bullshit you're on about.
-
i want the president to be lawful and constitutional. that means nominating a justice. it's a rule. i also want citizens to be lawful and constitutional. that means not resorting to violence simply because the party you don't like nominated a justice you don't like.
in case you haven't noticed, people disagree about rights. there is no universally accepted interpretation of either rights in general or constitutional amendments in particular. all you're fundamentally saying is that if the courts don't agree with your particular interpretation of the quran the constitution, then you're going to make them pay.
"The president can do whatever they want as long as it's legal!" Haha, good one.
Also, you're right, if I were a Muslim, then believing that my book should be implemented in government would be my right. I may even violently fight for that right. As you may or may not have noticed, a lot of Muslims are doing that very thing.
again, really can't emphasize this enough: that's how terrorists deal with political differences. "if i don't get what i'm entitled to politically, then i'm going to hurt you."
It's how a suppressed citizenship deals with a tyrannical government. It's quite literally how the United States came into being. Your constant "but, but, terrorism!" is a pathetic cop-out. I'm not talking about me, as a single person, bombing buildings or assassinating people, that doesn't solve anything. I'm speaking of a large portion of the citizenry will lash out against someone trying to suppress their gun rights. But, as I said before, that will never happen. No one is dumb enough to actually try to take guns. At best, Hillary would encourage the idea of taxing them into oblivion.
rights talk doesn't disgust me. i love rights. like the right to agree with anyone i want to, have any opinion i want to, supports any candidate i want to, and value any public policy i want to. and the right of the president to do what the constitution says presidents are supposed to do, and what senates are supposed to do, and what courts are supposed to do.
i'm not on the side of 'everybody better do things my way or get shot' or whatever other internet tough guy bullshit you're on about.
Where did I say any of that? I mentioned that the second amendment will be protected by the second amendment. That's not "everyone better do what I say or be shot!" that's a warning. The very purpose of the second amendment is to serve as that warning. A warning that if a government goes too far, it is the right of the people to draw the line.
-
"The president can do whatever they want as long as it's legal!" Haha, good one.
yeah that's how laws work. by definition. the things that are legal are permissible. the thing that are illegal are not permissible. the democratically elected president can nominate a justice because that's what the constitution directs him or her to do. the democratically elected senate can confirm or deny that nomination because that's what the constitution directs them to do. citizens control who is in the senate and who sits in the white house.
i don't think you've actually thought through what you're saying. just think for a moment about the implications of your argument that there are things that are legal and constitutional but can still justifiably be resisted with force and violence. individuals and groups do not get to unilaterally constrain others from actions that are constitutionally protected simply because they decided that they don't like the outcome, or to enforce their interpretation of an amendment over the one that was achieved through constitutionally protected checks and balances.
is that the world you want to live in, where people who believe health care is a universal right get to arm themselves in support of it? what about blm protestors who believe that the state is denying them their basic fundamental liberties? are you down with them arming up? does the state get to make caveats to the first amendment? i mean, just because something is legal doesn't mean you should be able to do it, so the state gets to do that, too? what about non-state actors? can other political groups decide that i can't "do i want just because it's legal" and use force to stop me from saying things they don't like? what if i agree with and support positions that they think deny rights to others, like a pro-abortion stance? are they justified in using force to stop me? you down with that?
Also, you're right, if I were a Muslim, then believing that my book should be implemented in government would be my right. I may even violently fight for that right. As you may or may not have noticed, a lot of Muslims are doing that very thing.
cool, i don't think that should be the model for political change in the united states is what i'm saying. i think constitutionally prescribed remedies are preferable to living in mosul or aleppo or whatever you're trying to say.
It's how a suppressed citizenship deals with a tyrannical government.
a democratically elected president fulfilling his or her constitutionally protected duties is the exact opposite of tyranny. that's called rule of law, and i don't want to live in a place where it is unilaterally usurped. i'd don't think the people who voted for those outcomes should have their votes cancelled by whoever is most willing to be violent/has the most guns.
Where did I say any of that? I mentioned that the second amendment will be protected by the second amendment. That's not "everyone better do what I say or be shot!" that's a warning. The very purpose of the second amendment is to serve as that warning. A warning that if a government goes too far, it is the right of the people to draw the line.
right, you're not using threats of violence, you're just saying that if hillary clinton nominates a justice who interprets the second amendment differently than you do, the people with guns are going to make her regret it and everyone who agrees with her.
again, it is absolutely defies logic to suggest that the constitution prohibits what the constitution prescribes, or that adhering to its mandates is "government going too far." i kinda doubt that the founders intended the people to "draw the line" at the lawful fulfillment of constitutional mandates. more-so than any other time i've said it, what you're saying is literal nonsense.
i guess i didn't read the bit in the constitution about how the second amendment is immune from judicial review. which section is that in again?
-
yeah that's how laws work. by definition. the things that are legal are permissible. the thing that are illegal are not permissible. the democratically elected president can nominate a justice because that's what the constitution directs him or her to do. the democratically elected senate can confirm or deny that nomination because that's what the constitution directs them to do. citizens control who is in the senate and who sits in the white house.
Actually, that's not at all how laws work. Just because something is legal doesn't mean it's justifiable or socially acceptable to perform a legal action. Likewise, just because something is illegal doesn't mean it is socially unacceptable or unjustifiable. The legal system, by nature of its change processes, doesn't always reflect the population it rules over with high accuracy. The president could legally invade Mexico up to ninety days. That doesn't mean it's totally okay to do that.
i don't think you've actually thought through what you're saying. just think for a moment about the implications of your argument that there are things that are legal and constitutional but can still justifiably be resisted with force and violence. individuals and groups do not get to unilaterally constrain others from actions that are constitutionally protected simply because they decided that they don't like the outcome, or to enforce their interpretation of an amendment over the one that was achieved through constitutionally protected checks and balances.
Hmm, actually I think I have thought through my moral stances. You keep wanting to make this a "well, you think violence is only okay when you do it." No, I believe the right to be armed and fight for what you believe in is justifiable for every human being. Just as it is the right of the people they are fighting to fight back. The problem here is that you don't view political change as a form of conflict whereas I do. Forcing people to adhere to a set of laws is by it's very nature a violent act. People who don't agree with a set of laws are forced to abide by those laws, because if they don't, they will be punished. Sound familiar? It's state-endorsed terrorism! Oh noes!
is that the world you want to live in, where people who believe health care is a universal right get to arm themselves in support of it? what about blm protestors who believe that the state is denying them their basic fundamental liberties? are you down with them arming up? does the state get to make caveats to the first amendment? i mean, just because something is legal doesn't mean you should be able to do it, so the state gets to do that, too? what about non-state actors? can other political groups decide that i can't "do i want just because it's legal" and use force to stop me from saying things they don't like? what if i agree with and support positions that they think deny rights to others, like a pro-abortion stance? are they justified in using force to stop me? you down with that?
How many people really believe universal healthcare is worth fighting for? Or any other given group? When you approach a "very many" answer, then you get violence. We're seeing groups like BLM approach that answer and that is their right.
cool, i don't think that should be the model for political change in the united states is what i'm saying. i think constitutionally prescribed remedies are preferable to living in mosul or aleppo or whatever you're trying to say.
In other words, you want to force people to adhere to your beliefs, you simply don't like that other people try to do the exact same thing, albeit they take a different route.
a democratically elected president fulfilling his or her constitutionally protected duties is the exact opposite of tyranny. that's called rule of law, and i don't want to live in a place where it is unilaterally usurped. i'd don't think the people who voted for those outcomes should have their votes cancelled by whoever is most willing to be violent/has the most guns.
You live in a place that only exists because once upon a time a great amount of people unilaterally usurped the law. If you don't want to rock the boat, then I suggest you stop moving around.
right, you're not using threats of violence, you're just saying that if hillary clinton nominates a justice who interprets the second amendment differently than you do, the people with guns are going to make her regret it and everyone who agrees with her.
again, it is absolutely defies logic to suggest that the constitution prohibits what the constitution prescribes, or that adhering to its mandates is "government going too far." i kinda doubt that the founders intended the people to "draw the line" at the lawful fulfillment of constitutional mandates. more-so than any other time i've said it, what you're saying is literal nonsense.
i guess i didn't read the bit in the constitution about how the second amendment is immune from judicial review. which section is that in again?
I'm saying that myself and a great many others will utilize our rights to defend those rights, as is your right to defend your own rights. That you can't, or don't want to, is entirely your choice.
-
for context, except that i don't believe in god or the divinity of christ, i'm basically a quaker, so i pretty much never think it's ok to be violent.
Actually, that's not at all how laws work. Just because something is legal doesn't mean it's justifiable or socially acceptable to perform a legal action.
in the context of a freshman ethics seminar, i completely agree. in the context of 'when is it acceptable to use violence to get what you want," i completely disagree.
You keep wanting to make this a "well, you think violence is only okay when you do it." No, I believe the right to be armed and fight for what you believe in is justifiable for every human being. Just as it is the right of the people they are fighting to fight back.
my problem is actually with the latter. i don't think it's ok to hurt others simply because you really really really believe that you're entitled to the thing you're demanding. that's just terrorism, and i don't think it's an acceptable mode of political change in a free republic.
How many people really believe universal healthcare is worth fighting for? Or any other given group? When you approach a "very many" answer, then you get violence. We're seeing groups like BLM approach that answer and that is their right.
i think this is the very problem that the constitution is designed to solve: everyone disagrees on what their rights ought to be, so let's let the people settle those differences with rules and words, not force and violence. i don't want to live in a place where it's ok for groups and individuals to settle those disagreements with violence. those places already exist and they fucking suck.
In other words, you want to force people to adhere to your beliefs, you simply don't like that other people try to do the exact same thing, albeit they take a different route.
twist my words all you like, but i was super clear: i want the president, whomever that may be, to do what is lawful and constitutional, regardless of whether or not i personally like or agree with the outcome. i would never suggest that president trump's supreme court nominee should be resisted with force or violence.
You live in a place that only exists because once upon a time a great amount of people unilaterally usurped the law. If you don't want to rock the boat, then I suggest you stop moving around.
they didn't unilaterally usurp a free republic, which is what we are. they didn't overthrow a democratically elected government. they actually fought and died to create the very document that you apparently have absolutely no regard for.
I'm saying that myself and a great many others will utilize our rights to defend those rights, as is your right to defend your own rights. That you can't, or don't want to, is entirely your choice.
no, i get it. if the state and society doesn't give you what you believe you're entitled to, then you're going to hurt people. you've made yourself perfectly clear on this point.
-
What is the purpose of this split and why does it contain several completely on-topic posts?
-
I'm saying that myself and a great many others will utilize our rights to defend those rights, as is your right to defend your own rights. That you can't, or don't want to, is entirely your choice.
Oh dear! I don't think he's even joking.
-
in the context of a freshman ethics seminar, i completely agree. in the context of 'when is it acceptable to use violence to get what you want," i completely disagree.
Then we're at a basic impasse, then. You agree violence isn't acceptable and I agree that it is.
my problem is actually with the latter. i don't think it's ok to hurt others simply because you really really really believe that you're entitled to the thing you're demanding. that's just terrorism, and i don't think it's an acceptable mode of political change in a free republic.
What's the difference between a group of people demanding a certain action be taken or they'll punish you versus the government doing the same thing? You seem to give the term "government" more weight than people in general. The true pinnacle of authoritarianism and fascism: the government knows what is best for you, even if you don't agree.
i think this is the very problem that the constitution is designed to solve: everyone disagrees on what their rights ought to be, so let's let the people settle those differences with rules and words, not force and violence. i don't want to live in a place where it's ok for groups and individuals to settle those disagreements with violence. those places already exist and they fucking suck.
Well, the key here is that it is currently working because what the population currently considers rights aren't being massively oppressed, though that depends on who you are. For example, BLM and many blacks feel that their rights are not being met so they lash out, sometimes violently, at government and society in general. After all, it did take an entire war just to free much of the black population from slavery. It's not surprising that more extreme measures must be taken to ensure your rights are where they should be.
twist my words all you like, but i was super clear: i want the president, whomever that may be, to do what is lawful and constitutional, regardless of whether or not i personally like or agree with the outcome. i would never suggest that president trump's supreme court nominee should be resisted with force or violence.
That you don't suggest it, doesn't mean that it's not your right to do so. To wish the world is a different place and to do little to make it so is the gravest of sins.
they didn't unilaterally usurp a free republic, which is what we are. they didn't overthrow a democratically elected government. they actually fought and died to create the very document that you apparently have absolutely no regard for.
That depends on what you call a "free republic." A republic that has citizens which cannot own weapons is not free at all in my eyes.
no, i get it. if the state and society doesn't give you what you believe you're entitled to, then you're going to hurt people. you've made yourself perfectly clear on this point.
You may be willing to bend over for others, but I am not. You are the 'useful idiots' that Lenin loved. Only the government should be armed, my dear citizen, as you are not able to defend yourself. Only the government should provide healthcare, dear citizen, as you are not able to care for yourself. Only the government should provide food, dear citizen, as you are not able to feed yourself.
The federal government needs to learn which pies it can stick its fingers in and which pies are going to get its fingers burnt.
Oh dear! I don't think he's even joking.
It is why "they'll take ur guns!" fearmongering is irrelevant. No one is taking guns from Americans, because the first one to reach out for the gun is going to be the first one killed by it.
-
What is the purpose of this split and why does it contain several completely on-topic posts?
While the topic is tangentially related to the election, I felt like it would dilute other possible presidential topics. Also, gun rights threads go on for a very long time.
-
i think our primary divergence is that you view this through a lens of outcomes and not procedures, and i think that preference is at the heart of totalitarianism. in other words, your arguments suggest to me that you would take no issue with living under an authoritarian regime so long as that regime gives you want you believe you're entitled to. you'd be fine living with lenin so long as lenin says you can own guns.
i'm more interested in whether or not our society is procedurally free, and i don't think that procedural freedom can exist in a world in which votes are nullified by violence to achieve an outcome.
in the context of a freshman ethics seminar, i completely agree. in the context of 'when is it acceptable to use violence to get what you want," i completely disagree.
Then we're at a basic impasse, then. You agree violence isn't acceptable and I agree that it is.
let's assume that i think violence is sometimes acceptable. i still don't think individuals or groups should get to unilaterally create their own laws, and then enforce those laws on others using violence. that's all you're saying when you talk about how not everything that is legal is permissible. forget terrorism: the unchecked use of violence by one group to enforce its views on all the others is pretty much the definition of authoritarianism. that you're advocating turning this violence against the democratic will of the citizens is even more authoritarian.
What's the difference between a group of people demanding a certain action be taken or they'll punish you versus the government doing the same thing? You seem to give the term "government" more weight than people in general. The true pinnacle of authoritarianism and fascism: the government knows what is best for you, even if you don't agree.
...
You may be willing to bend over for others, but I am not. You are the 'useful idiots' that Lenin loved. Only the government should be armed, my dear citizen, as you are not able to defend yourself. Only the government should provide healthcare, dear citizen, as you are not able to care for yourself. Only the government should provide food, dear citizen, as you are not able to feed yourself.
The federal government needs to learn which pies it can stick its fingers in and which pies are going to get its fingers burnt.
dunno how much more clear i can be. i am not saying that citizens should not own guns, nor that state violence is preferable to non-state violence, nor that the state should monopolize the capacity to use force. i am saying that, in a free republic, all citizens, even those who work for the state (especially those who work for the state), should be bound to to the constitution. their adherence to it should not be resisted with force and violence.
at no point have i suggested that "the government knows what's best for you." i'm arguing that citizens should govern themselves, that our constitution in this republic facilitates that self-governance, and citizens who unilaterally usurp that facility are doing something both illegal and immoral. you're using guns to nullify votes. that's all you're suggesting.
if lenin comes back to life, seizes dc and rips up the constitution, then i'll have more sympathy for your position. until then, you're comparing leninism to the us constitution, and i don't buy it at all.
It's not surprising that more extreme measures must be taken to ensure your rights are where they should be.
...
That depends on what you call a "free republic." A republic that has citizens which cannot own weapons is not free at all in my eyes.
there is no objective measure of what your rights "should be." there is no universal agreement on what counts as a right or not. this is my whole point. since we live in a society that uses voting/words/rules/persuasion to determine those rights and their boundaries, then let's keep doing that instead of the "might makes right" world you so desperately want to live in. again, that's how we get mosul. i don't want to live in mosul.
To wish the world is a different place and to do little to make it so is the gravest of sins.
then you should abandon your support for force and violence as a means of political change. nonviolent resistance is empirically much more effective than violence at achieving the goals of its users.
the most effective protest that second amendment supporters could mount against a government trying to disarm them would be to, very publicly and with much protest, simply refuse to relinquish them.
-
i think our primary divergence is that you view this through a lens of outcomes and not procedures, and i think that preference is at the heart of totalitarianism. in other words, your arguments suggest to me that you would take no issue with living under an authoritarian regime so long as that regime gives you want you believe you're entitled to. you'd be fine living with lenin so long as lenin says you can own guns.
i'm more interested in whether or not our society is procedurally free, and i don't think that procedural freedom can exist in a world in which votes are nullified by violence to achieve an outcome.
Actually, our divergence is in what procedures we deem acceptable. I never once stated that violence always has a desirable, or even righteous, outcome. You've placed that idea of me into your own mind.
let's assume that i think violence is sometimes acceptable. i still don't think individuals or groups should get to unilaterally create their own laws, and then enforce those laws on others using violence. that's all you're saying when you talk about how not everything that is legal is permissible. forget terrorism: the unchecked use of violence by one group to enforce its views on all the others is pretty much the definition of authoritarianism. that you're advocating turning this violence against the democratic will of the citizens is even more authoritarian.
But who makes those laws, if not a group of people unifying themselves? If a group of people becomes so powerful that the original group to have created the laws is diminished or destroyed, then does that not mean the government was corrupt regardless? My process for conflict resolution only has a chance of succeeding if the group of people in conflict with the government is large enough to destabilize the government in question. Random and individual suicide bombers or mass shooters (the "terrorism" I assume you refer to) cannot actually topple a government. It would take a concerted effort from a fairly large group of people.
If a large enough group exists to challenge the authority of a "democratically elected" government, then maybe that government wasn't quite as democratically elected as you had thought.
i'm arguing that citizens should govern themselves
We're both arguing this, it seems. It is simply that you believe some X amount of citizens have more of a right to govern themselves then some Y amount. I am trying to point out that the notion of "if 75% of the people believe gun ownership is not a right, then it isn't" is inherently wrong, because that last 25% of people might not agree. And if that last 25% of people sufficiently rebel to make their voices heard, either through the ballot box or the ammo box, then so be it.
there is no objective measure of what your rights "should be." there is no universal agreement on what counts as a right or not. this is my whole point. since we live in a society that uses voting/words/rules/persuasion to determine those rights and their boundaries, then let's keep doing that instead of the "might makes right" world you so desperately want to live in. again, that's how we get mosul. i don't want to live in mosul.
We already live in a "might makes right" world, gary. Why do you think police and the government exert the power that they do? If you don't do what the police say, they punish you. If you don't do what the government says, it will punish you. Of course the natural progression is Islam, since how can one argue with "if you don't do what God says, He will punish you."
The thing is, gary, I don't think you comprehend just how close to Mosul we really are and how something like the second amendment keeps us from descending into that realm. If you concentrate power into the hands of a few, you open yourself up to be very easily used by them. The government should never, ever be the only armed entity in a modern society.
then you should abandon your support for force and violence as a means of political change. nonviolent resistance is empirically much more effective than violence at achieving the goals of its users.
History disagrees. Ideas like "peace solves all" is why Islam is winning an ideological war with the West. Europe is the new Byzantine Empire and let's watch how fast it falls.
the most effective protest that second amendment supporters could mount against a government trying to disarm them would be to, very publicly and with much protest, simply refuse to relinquish them.
Something tells me that gathering in a big public group whilst brandishing rifles may very well be the worst possible way to go about protecting the second amendment.
-
Actually, our divergence is in what procedures we deem acceptable. I never once stated that violence always has a desirable, or even righteous, outcome. You've placed that idea of me into your own mind.
my criticism is that you think violence is an acceptable mode of political change in a free republic, not that you think it's always good. our divergence is that i think the procedure should be "one person, one vote," not "one person + x guns, x votes."
We're both arguing this, it seems. It is simply that you believe some X amount of citizens have more of a right to govern themselves then some Y amount. I am trying to point out that the notion of "if 75% of the people believe gun ownership is not a right, then it isn't" is inherently wrong, because that last 25% of people might not agree. And if that last 25% of people sufficiently rebel to make their voices heard, either through the ballot box or the ammo box, then so be it.
lol. you really don't get it, do you? in the losers of a 75/25 vote split decide to use force and violence to change the outcome, that's authoritarianism at best and terrorism at worst. there isn't any other way to describe it. you're just using guns to nullify votes. nullifying votes with guns is, to me, the exact opposite of living in a free society.
but...but...the tyranny of the majority! lmao. yeah shit doesn't always work out the way you want, but you got your vote, and that's how democracies go. since it's not a dictatorship where the folks with guns write the rules, then there will be future opportunities to lobby for what you want. frankly, "if 75% of the people [in a free republic] believe gun ownership is not a right, then it isn't" is more sensical than "if i really really really think it's a right, then it must be a right and everyone else must agree with me." protip: you can't prove to anyone what your rights are. feeling really really entitled to something isn't a demonstration that you actually are.
History disagrees. Ideas like "peace solves all" is why Islam is winning an ideological war with the West. Europe is the new Byzantine Empire and let's watch how fast it falls.
you're obviously not interested in a factual discussion of the merits of nonviolence. hint: "peace solves all" isn't anywhere in the literature.
empirically, nonviolent resistance is a more effective means of affecting political change than violence, even when it comes to resisting totalitarian regimes. the literature on this subject is compelling.
since 1900, nonviolent campaigns are twice as likely to achieve their objectives as violent campaigns (http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/files/IS3301_pp007-044_Stephan_Chenoweth.pdf), and they come at a much lower cost.
civil resistance is empirically better at securing rights (https://freedomhouse.org/sites/default/files/How%20Freedom%20is%20Won.pdf).
terrorism is empirically awful at achieving its objectives (http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/isec.2006.31.2.42).
Something tells me that gathering in a big public group whilst brandishing rifles may very well be the worst possible way to go about protecting the second amendment.
if you think that, then i'm not sure how you think using them is going to be better for you, but whatever.
that said, nonviolent protests would be much more effective in this specific instance because it doesn't alienate you from either the military, or the rest of the population. if guns were actually outlawed, the best thing you could do would be to protest in large numbers and not shoot anyone. prove to citizens and the rest of the globe that you aren't violent and that guns aren't about that. let the federal government arrest people and use their own force if they want. that only makes you look better to everyone else, including military personnel who are more likely to align themselves with a nonviolent movement than one that is shooting at them.
if you think an armed resistance against the government to secure the right to own some shit you really really really think you should get to own, then i would point out that this actually happened once and didn't go well for the instigators at all.
-
my criticism is that you think violence is an acceptable mode of political change in a free republic, not that you think it's always good. our divergence is that i think the procedure should be "one person, one vote," not "one person + x guns, x votes."
That violence is considered an acceptable means of change is the reason the second amendment exists at all. This "free republic" was created through a violent uprising and its creators wanted to ensure that violent uprising remained to be a means to change, albeit a method of last resort.
lol. you really don't get it, do you? in the losers of a 75/25 vote split decide to use force and violence to change the outcome, that's authoritarianism at best and terrorism at worst. there isn't any other way to describe it. you're just using guns to nullify votes. nullifying votes with guns is, to me, the exact opposite of living in a free society.
Tyranny of the majority is still tyranny. Do gay men in Muslim countries really deserve to be thrown off a rooftop simply because the majority of the nation thinks it's alright to do so? It seems like you're alright with oppressing people's rights as long as those people happen to be in the minority.
but...but...the tyranny of the majority! lmao. yeah shit doesn't always work out the way you want, but you got your vote, and that's how democracies go. since it's not a dictatorship where the folks with guns write the rules, then there will be future opportunities to lobby for what you want. frankly, "if 75% of the people [in a free republic] believe gun ownership is not a right, then it isn't" is more sensical than "if i really really really think it's a right, then it must be a right and everyone else must agree with me." protip: you can't prove to anyone what your rights are. feeling really really entitled to something isn't a demonstration that you actually are.
"Tough luck, buddy, you voted and it turns out it didn't matter at all, none of your concerns matter!" Haha, good one.
you're obviously not interested in a factual discussion of the merits of nonviolence. hint: "peace solves all" isn't anywhere in the literature.
A combination of violent and nonviolent measures is what must be taken. Violence is a last resort, but it is still a resort.
empirically, nonviolent resistance is a more effective means of affecting political change than violence, even when it comes to resisting totalitarian regimes. the literature on this subject is compelling.
There are thousands of violent revolutions in history that have resulted in what you may say is a desirable outcome. Two of the most powerful countries on the planet have the governments that they do because of violent uprising: the United States and China.
Clearly violence has not only a great impact on change, but a very long lasting one. The French Revolution is my favorite.
if you think that, then i'm not sure how you think using them is going to be better for you, but whatever.
that said, nonviolent protests would be much more effective in this specific instance because it doesn't alienate you from either the military, or the rest of the population. if guns were actually outlawed, the best thing you could do would be to protest in large numbers and not shoot anyone. prove to citizens and the rest of the globe that you aren't violent and that guns aren't about that. let the federal government arrest people and use their own force if they want. that only makes you look better to everyone else, including military personnel who are more likely to align themselves with a nonviolent movement than one that is shooting at them.
if you think an armed resistance against the government to secure the right to own some shit you really really really think you should get to own, then i would point out that this actually happened once and didn't go well for the instigators at all.
You seem to have a strange idea of how armed resistance takes place, and I think this is why you keep saying "but but this is terrorism!!" Taking a rifle and shooting fifty people at a mall is terrorism. It accomplishes nothing and just generally pisses everyone off. To form a resistance, one must attack the sources of the government's power, which is generally logistics.
-
That violence is considered an acceptable means of change is the reason the second amendment exists at all. This "free republic" was created through a violent uprising and its creators wanted to ensure that violent uprising remained to be a means to change, albeit a method of last resort.
a violent uprising against a minority imposing its will on the majority through the use of force. the thing you're advocating is the thing they fought to stop. they then wrote a constitution that included gun rights and multiple mechanisms for citizens to reevaluate and modify those rights, a constitution that you would abandon in favor of effectively reestablishing minority rule through violence. as i already mentioned, the framers did not write that the second amendment, or any other amendment, was immune from change. that's why we have rules for amendments. that's why we have courts. that's why we have all these checks and balances. you know what doesn't have any checks and balances? mobs with guns.
Tyranny of the majority is still tyranny. Do gay men in Muslim countries really deserve to be thrown off a rooftop simply because the majority of the nation thinks it's alright to do so? It seems like you're alright with oppressing people's rights as long as those people happen to be in the minority.
but the minority enforcing its will on everyone with guns is somehow not tyranny? i can't think of any new ways to say it: when the majorty gets what it wants through free and fair elections and universal sufferage, then no, i don't think that's tyranny. that's democracy. when those votes are nullified because "but i didn't get what i want!," then i think that's tyranny.
"Tough luck, buddy, you voted and it turns out it didn't matter at all, none of your concerns matter!" Haha, good one.
awwwwww i'm so sorry that you didn't always get exactly what you wanted from the electoral process. how sad for you :( :( :(
"tough luck, buddy, you voted in a free and fair election, but fuck that and fuck you, i've got a gun and i'm willing to be violent. do what i say or you'll regret it." yeah that's much freer...
There are thousands of violent revolutions in history that have resulted in what you may say is a desirable outcome. Two of the most powerful countries on the planet have the governments that they do because of violent uprising: the United States and China.
Clearly violence has not only a great impact on change, but a very long lasting one. The French Revolution is my favorite.
it's almost as if my evidence never once said that violence never works ever.
You seem to have a strange idea of how armed resistance takes place, and I think this is why you keep saying "but but this is terrorism!!" Taking a rifle and shooting fifty people at a mall is terrorism. It accomplishes nothing and just generally pisses everyone off. To form a resistance, one must attack the sources of the government's power, which is generally logistics.
well, your advocacy doesn't delineate between justified and unjustified uses of violence beyond "but i really think i'm entitled to that right." i genuinely don't know how what you're saying wouldn't justify a lone gunman simply shooting someone for taking a legal action that the assailant believed infringed on his or her rights. you can't prove what your rights are. there is no objectively verifiable, universally acceptable set of rights. this is the whole reason for codifying our rights into a document that can be modified democratically.
my advocacy provides a super clear delineation: do you live in a democratically free society with universal suffrage? then you should not be violent. you should vote. you should not decide to hurt people because the outcome of the free and fair election didn't go the way you wanted it to. forget about terrorism or authoritarianism. that's just childish.
and with that, i'll let you have the last word. i don't mean that sarcastically; i just doubt we're going to get any further. for the record i'm not saying you're a terrorist. i just don't really get how anyone could be more outraged at 75% outvoting the rest to get its way than 25% out violence-ing the rest to get its way. there will never be universal agreement on anything. lets resolve our differences with votes instead of guns.
-
a violent uprising against a minority imposing its will on the majority through the use of force. the thing you're advocating is the thing they fought to stop. they then wrote a constitution that included gun rights and multiple mechanisms for citizens to reevaluate and modify those rights, a constitution that you would abandon in favor of effectively reestablishing minority rule through violence. as i already mentioned, the framers did not write that the second amendment, or any other amendment, was immune from change. that's why we have rules for amendments. that's why we have courts. that's why we have all these checks and balances. you know what doesn't have any checks and balances? mobs with guns.
You're right, any of those amendments can be repealed through a consistent majority. Even the 13th amendment could be wiped away. That wouldn't mean it's right to do so, no matter how many people say it is.
but the minority enforcing its will on everyone with guns is somehow not tyranny? i can't think of any new ways to say it: when the majorty gets what it wants through free and fair elections and universal sufferage, then no, i don't think that's tyranny. that's democracy. when those votes are nullified because "but i didn't get what i want!," then i think that's tyranny.
One man's utopia is another's dystopia. I wouldn't be very happy in Saudi Arabia, but if the majority of people are, then I guess that's the right thing to have. Moral relativism strikes again.
awwwwww i'm so sorry that you didn't always get exactly what you wanted from the electoral process. how sad for you :( :( :(
Reaching this point with you was inevitable, I suppose.
"tough luck, buddy, you voted in a free and fair election, but fuck that and fuck you, i've got a gun and i'm willing to be violent. do what i say or you'll regret it." yeah that's much freer...
You seem to be completely missing the point. The guns aren't used literally to defend the right to have guns. The guns are used to defend all of the other rights. When someone removes your ability to defend yourself, they can do whatever they like with you.
it's almost as if my evidence never once said that violence never works ever.
...I didn't say you said that? Hello, Rushy here, yes, I am the one you've been arguing with, not this magical force that appears to be whispering sweet nothings into your computer screen.
well, your advocacy doesn't delineate between justified and unjustified uses of violence beyond "but i really think i'm entitled to that right." i genuinely don't know how what you're saying wouldn't justify a lone gunman simply shooting someone for taking a legal action that the assailant believed infringed on his or her rights. you can't prove what your rights are. there is no objectively verifiable, universally acceptable set of rights. this is the whole reason for codifying our rights into a document that can be modified democratically.
my advocacy provides a super clear delineation: do you live in a democratically free society with universal suffrage? then you should not be violent. you should vote. you should not decide to hurt people because the outcome of the free and fair election didn't go the way you wanted it to. forget about terrorism or authoritarianism. that's just childish.
and with that, i'll let you have the last word. i don't mean that sarcastically; i just doubt we're going to get any further. for the record i'm not saying you're a terrorist. i just don't really get how anyone could be more outraged at 75% outvoting the rest to get its way than 25% out violence-ing the rest to get its way. there will never be universal agreement on anything. lets resolve our differences with votes instead of guns.
My point is that just because you have a "democratic" document doesn't mean that document even remotely represents the people it governs and it definitely isn't a catch-all for what we as humans can or cannot do. I don't personally see the difference between an oppressive tyranny of the majority situation or a literal monarch/tyrant simply oppressing their people outright. It is your natural right, as is the natural right of all humans, to defend themselves and their beliefs by nonviolent or violent means. Their religion, their family, their livelihoods. I'm not advocating terrorism and I'm not patting some fool on the back saying "good on you, sonny, for strapping bombs to yourself in the name of Allah" that's not defense of yourself in my eyes, that's simply waging an offense on humanity.
You should always seek to keep yourself in a defensible position and it should alarm you if anyone, friend or foe, seeks to undermine your position by removing tools that serve that purpose. Especially when the justification is that those tools are too dangerous for anyone but those in power to possess.
-
To Rushy in his foxhole out in the backwoods of human understanding.
Stop watching infowars and Fox news or at least balance it with a bit of Realnews Network or the Independent. Stop getting your view of the world from endless apple-pie tub-thumping jingoistic shit movies like Captain America, Flags of our Fathers and American Sniper, try Gandhi, Pans Labyrinth or Grave of the fire flies. Get some history books, America didn’t win the second world or Vietnam wars (Russia & whatever kids were left after you napalmed their parents did).
America is locked in a hideous cycle of self-destruction because of this 2nd amendment, the right to bear arms shackles you into a downward spiral of fear of each other. The police stop someone with a busted tail light but fear drives the need to draw guns, and the guy ends up dead, way to go America.
Unfortunately, there is little to be done, take away your guns and you freeze up. On a similar thread someone bought up the fact a man had been gored to death by a goat, his point that the area was designated gun free was the problem, but his buddies shorn of their guns and therefore their courage had stood and waited while he bled out only for the park keepers to chase it off throwing rocks, way to go!
Many countries have gone through revolutions, none of them have private gun ownership of 89 out a hundred, they have moved on, civilised, and as a result aren’t slaughtering each other at the rate you are. You feel you need your guns to feel safe from terrorism, we live with it, but they have always been there, ISIL, al Qaeda, IRA, RAF, PLO etc., They come they go and we are no nearer losing the ideological war with Islam as we did with them.
Britain (member of the byzantine club and about to be consumed in some apocalypse apparently) bans the ownership of “Zombie killer knives” as some lad was killed in a gang fight. (Zombie knives are stylised combat orientated blades with names such as Head splitter), not one complaint about not being able to wave a matt black machete called the widowmaker around to feel macho, but if you were to come here with your “Sir yes sir”, “You can’t handle the truth”, Halls of Montezuma crap, we would kick your ass just like those Vietnamese kids did.
Sorry, it's all that testosterone you were giving off.
-
Stop watching infowars and Fox news or at least balance it with a bit of Realnews Network or the Independent. Stop getting your view of the world from endless apple-pie tub-thumping jingoistic shit movies like Captain America, Flags of our Fathers and American Sniper, try Gandhi, Pans Labyrinth or Grave of the fire flies. Get some history books, America didn’t win the second world or Vietnam wars (Russia & whatever kids were left after you napalmed their parents did).
None of this has anything to do with what Rushy was saying. He's expressing skepticism and mistrust of the government, not jingoistic celebration of it. Also, the Captain America movies aren't about what you and John McTiernan think they're about.
-
He mentioned guns, the second amendment, terrorism, revolutions and “byzantine Europe”, I replied mentioning those things.
Stop trying to suck up to Rushy in the hope you last one round more in next game of werewolf, Rushy hates suck-ups, Sir yes sir!
-
Gary could put together a reasonable argument about his own stances and moral foundations. His stance was his own, even if I disagree with it.
Jura, however, is simply parroting nonsense. I can easily identify someone whose opinions have been formed by other people and then simply given to them to repeat whenever the they encounter an opposing opinion.
-
Of course you can Rushy, especially when it neatly absolves you from answering.
-
Of course you can Rushy, especially when it neatly absolves you from answering.
Answering what? You didn't propose any questions and you didn't make any points worth discussing. All I saw was an emotional outbreak where you made parroted statements.
Read some of Gary's posts and learn how to maintain some semblance of social competency.
-
Of course you can Rushy, especially when it neatly absolves you from answering.
Answering what? You didn't propose any questions and you didn't make any points worth discussing. All I saw was an emotional outbreak where you made parroted statements.
Whereas your mantra that owning an arsenal is the only thing that keeps the (Feds’, reds, ragheads, anarchy …….) at bay, hasn’t been drummed into you since you saw your first John Wayne film, and we haven't heard a thousand times?
I agree that governments, especially those that are financed by billionaires and “interest groups” as most seem to be now (yours in particular) show a broken democratic process.
But your intimation that you and your rifle are the antidote, doesn’t stand up, in fact a government intent on takeover needs divide and rule to succeed. A few militias stirred to action by violation of their rights blowing a dam, taking a radio station and you sitting on your porch taking pot shots at all and sundry, is fifteen minutes work for a C130 gunship followed by martial law.
-
Whereas your mantra that owning an arsenal is the only thing that keeps the (Feds’, reds, ragheads, anarchy …….) at bay, hasn’t been drummed into you since you saw your first John Wayne film, and we haven't heard a thousand times?
I agree that governments, especially those that are financed by billionaires and “interest groups” as most seem to be now (yours in particular) show a broken democratic process.
But your intimation that you and your rifle are the antidote, doesn’t stand up, in fact a government intent on takeover needs divide and rule to succeed. A few militias stirred to action by violation of their rights blowing a dam, taking a radio station and you sitting on your porch taking pot shots at all and sundry, is fifteen minutes work for a C130 gunship followed by martial law.
Well, first off, a C-130 is a cargo aircraft. You're thinking of an AC-130.
Secondly, it would be a wildly unpopular move to use military force on domestic targets. That would only further encourage domestic rebellion and cause your military to start defecting or deserting.
This is also why the "Obama will institute martial law! Third term!" is nonsense. He can't do that because the military wouldn't agree, likewise he can't go around taking guns, either. These are all functionally impossible to accomplish.
-
It was an exercise in exaggeration to prove a point, that the semi-automatic rifle men of America are a credible deterrent if the government decides to do something mental. And I’m not suggesting they are about too.
What I don’t get is the rabid response to legislation on this, the last bit that got chucked back was to deny the sale of guns and explosives to suspected terrorists! The distance from this “thin end” to where you are on the wedge is considerable.
-
It was an exercise in exaggeration to prove a point, that the semi-automatic rifle men of America are a credible deterrent if the government decides to do something mental. And I’m not suggesting they are about too.
You seem to have a strange idea of what "the government" is. It's not some monolithic entity.
What I don’t get is the rabid response to legislation on this, the last bit that got chucked back was to deny the sale of guns and explosives to suspected terrorists! The distance from this “thin end” to where you are on the wedge is considerable.
Oh no, terrorists! Won't someone think of the children?
There are so many terrorists that I almost have a higher chance of getting killed by one than getting struck by lightning in a storm. Oh geez, maybe we need some sort of curfew during thunderstorms to curtail all of these terrible lightning deaths.
When a government starts doing anything in the name of the "war on terror" then a little red flag should pop up.
-
It was an exercise in exaggeration to prove a point, that the semi-automatic rifle men of America are a credible deterrent if the government decides to do something mental. And I’m not suggesting they are about too.
You seem to have a strange idea of what "the government" is. It's not some monolithic entity.
Well quite! But seeing as you mentioned it 20 times on the last page I thought it might be this organisation or sections thereof that you were getting ready to repel for denying you your rites.
If you don't do what the government says, it will punish you.
A warning that if a government goes too far, it is the right of the people to draw the line.
My point being that if you are the minority (see the 75% v 25% discussion), that majority has organised fire power that renders you insignificant.
Your claim that “it would be a wildly unpopular move to use military force on domestic targets. That would only further encourage domestic rebellion and cause your military to start defecting or deserting.” Is only partly true on the first point; presumably any altercation would be proceeded by rhetoric similar or more inflammatory than yours in this discussion and a threat or incident that catalyses a response, all of which would polarise the 75% into a defensive posture, especially when you threaten the use of arms from the outset.
On the second point you are wildly naïve. Your law enforcement agencies are no different from those around/across the world, young men trained and indoctrinated to follow orders and use weapons. These forces when called into a tense situation and ordered to shoot the innocent, show very few qualms and in many cases demonstrate an enthusiasm to use that training, either through a misplaced sense of danger, pavlovian response to direct orders or outright sadism. (see Kent State shootings, Ludlow mines massacre, My Lai… ad-nauseam), how much easier when it’s bunch of crusty old boys in army surplus who have just shot the sheriff.
All of which nullifies your point of having weapons in the first place, other than a .22 for gophers.
What I don’t get is the rabid response to legislation on this, the last bit that got chucked back was to deny the sale of guns and explosives to suspected terrorists! The distance from this “thin end” to where you are on the wedge is considerable.
Oh no, terrorists! Won't someone think of the children?
There are so many terrorists that I almost have a higher chance of getting killed by one than getting struck by lightning in a storm. Oh geez, maybe we need some sort of curfew during thunderstorms to curtail all of these terrible lightning deaths.
When a government starts doing anything in the name of the "war on terror" then a little red flag should pop up.
Fair enough, the War on terror/Red menace kind of thinking rarely produces good legislation.
However are there no laws that you can think of or ways to cut down on the 33,000 deaths and 73,000 injuries that your country inflicts on itself every year with guns? If 73,000 people were injured using TV’s they would be in cages.
-
My point being that if you are the minority (see the 75% v 25% discussion), that majority has organised fire power that renders you insignificant.
That assumes the majority is armed or well organized, which isn't always true and definitely doesn't stay true for long. It only takes 10% of a nation's population to take over the other 90% with enough zealotry.
Your claim that “it would be a wildly unpopular move to use military force on domestic targets. That would only further encourage domestic rebellion and cause your military to start defecting or deserting.” Is only partly true on the first point; presumably any altercation would be proceeded by rhetoric similar or more inflammatory than yours in this discussion and a threat or incident that catalyses a response, all of which would polarise the 75% into a defensive posture, especially when you threaten the use of arms from the outset.
The military moving against domestic targets will cause it to fragment regardless. Some X% of the military is going to agree with the rebels.
On the second point you are wildly naïve. Your law enforcement agencies are no different from those around/across the world, young men trained and indoctrinated to follow orders and use weapons. These forces when called into a tense situation and ordered to shoot the innocent, show very few qualms and in many cases demonstrate an enthusiasm to use that training, either through a misplaced sense of danger, pavlovian response to direct orders or outright sadism. (see Kent State shootings, Ludlow mines massacre, My Lai… ad-nauseam), how much easier when it’s bunch of crusty old boys in army surplus who have just shot the sheriff.
The "police and military are robot people" is either a result of you having no idea what the military or police really do or you live in an already oppressive regime.
Fair enough, the War on terror/Red menace kind of thinking rarely produces good legislation.
However are there no laws that you can think of or ways to cut down on the 33,000 deaths and 73,000 injuries that your country inflicts on itself every year with guns? If 73,000 people were injured using TV’s they would be in cages.
Your figures include suicide and attempted suicide. The real number is 11,000 deaths due to homicide, almost all of which is gang violence, and even then, it's further concentrated in specific cities. (Chicago, Flint, Detroit...)
The "gun violence" problem simply isn't a problem with guns, it's a problem with minority gangs and inner city poverty. You can't fix that by banning guns, which Chicago is finding out the hard way. In the grand scheme of things 11,000 people in a country of 300 million people... that's 0.00003% of the population. Are you really telling me that we need to ban or curb ALL of a tool to stop a problem that affects a population percentage so small that most calculators won't even display it in decimal? More recent statistics show the number is closer to 8000 now. Do you believe that is statistically significant enough to warrant the removal of firearms from law-abiding citizens because some teeny, tiny, laughably small part of the population uses them to kill innocents?
-
Can people stop propping up Chicago as the big bad gun homicide city? It has figured out of the top 20 in recent years, whereas there are cities with lax gun laws with much worse homicide rates, like St. Louis. I don't disagree that Chicago has too many murders and that they are largely related to gang-related incidents, but it is so tiring to see people say, "see Chicago is proof that gun laws don't work!"
Anyway, I know it is minor. Just peeves me. It peeves me hard.
-
Can people stop propping up Chicago as the big bad gun homicide city? It has figured out of the top 20 in recent years, whereas there are cities with lax gun laws with much worse homicide rates, like St. Louis. I don't disagree that Chicago has too many murders and that they are largely related to gang-related incidents, but it is so tiring to see people say, "see Chicago is proof that gun laws don't work!"
Anyway, I know it is minor. Just peeves me. It peeves me hard.
Compare Chicago's homicide rates before and after the gun laws were implemented after shifting the rate to compensate for the general downward trend of the entire country's homicide rate. Their gun laws had no significant effect.
-
I'm not saying the gun laws did have an effect, but that is the position of many a gun rights advocate.
-
My point being that if you are the minority (see the 75% v 25% discussion), that majority has organised fire power that renders you insignificant.
That assumes the majority is armed or well organized, which isn't always true and definitely doesn't stay true for long. It only takes 10% of a nation's population to take over the other 90% with enough zealotry.
No I’m assuming that the majority has the police and Army (Hence- organised fire power).
On the second point you are wildly naïve. Your law enforcement agencies are no different from those around/across the world, young men trained and indoctrinated to follow orders and use weapons. These forces when called into a tense situation and ordered to shoot the innocent, show very few qualms and in many cases demonstrate an enthusiasm to use that training, either through a misplaced sense of danger, pavlovian response to direct orders or outright sadism. (see Kent State shootings, Ludlow mines massacre, My Lai… ad-nauseam), how much easier when it’s bunch of crusty old boys in army surplus who have just shot the sheriff.
The "police and military are robot people" is either a result of you having no idea what the military or police really do or you live in an already oppressive regime.
Like I said, wildly naïve; For all the reasons and examples above.
I take it as the resident hard ass from the Flying 55th, your trump card is military experience.
So I will tell you a little story and hope it doesn't come across as a pissing contest, as it wasn't the best time in my life (and it has relevance to the above).
Back in the days when the British forces weapon(?) of choice was the SLR I was getting to the end of my basic training for the RAF at Swinderby. We were at the stage when all the flights (like a platoon) were in a marching contest in front of the top brass there, a week or so from passing out. It was January at a time when that meant snow, so it was in one of the hangers. There was repair work going on way up in the roof, suspended for the day but all the gantries and equipment was obviously still up there. Our flight was up and we were duly marching up and down as you do. A 2” x 2” piece of wood from the gantry dropped straight down and hit one of our front row breaking his collar bone and knocking him to the floor, we kept going, marched straight over the poor fucker adding various cuts, bruises, 2 broken ribs and concussion, picked up our rhythm and won the contest.
I did also know some proper soldiers too, my school friend, whose father was a Royal marine joined the royal engineers, his brother in law was in the horse Guards, did two tours of Ireland during the “troubles” left after 9 years and ended up in and out of mental institutions and finally disappeared presumed living rough. My Father -Blues and royals, Grandad- Sherwood Foresters.
Sooo… after all that bollocks I do have an inkling of what goes on in the military mind, and on the whole I was never impressed. For every good guy there were hordes of knuckle dragging numpties who in my opinion would have loved the chance to open fire on just about anyone, very few whose politics went beyond a reactionary stance that supported their choice to carry weapons and not one who I believed joined to make the world safer.
My school friend embraced the “squaddie” mentality served as many years as they would allow him and according to his brother is now a fat alcoholic willing to fight anyone, we lost touch.
Robots? No just young people drawn to the lifestyle, trained to kill/obey, in such a manner that they do so without doubt or question. That being the point, trust they will see the validity of your point when told to fire at your peril.
-
Back in the days when the British forces weapon(?) of choice was the SLR I was getting to the end of my basic training for the RAF at Swinderby. We were at the stage when all the flights (like a platoon) were in a marching contest in front of the top brass there, a week or so from passing out. It was January at a time when that meant snow, so it was in one of the hangers. There was repair work going on way up in the roof, suspended for the day but all the gantries and equipment was obviously still up there. Our flight was up and we were duly marching up and down as you do. A 2” x 2” piece of wood from the gantry dropped straight down and hit one of our front row breaking his collar bone and knocking him to the floor, we kept going, marched straight over the poor fucker adding various cuts, bruises, 2 broken ribs and concussion, picked up our rhythm and won the contest.
Wow, you're a fucking dick.
For every good guy there were hordes of knuckle dragging numpties who in my opinion would have loved the chance to open fire on just about anyone
Yeah, and you sound like a prime example. No wonder you're so cynical. Assholes like to assure themselves that deep down, everyone is just as shitty as they are.
-
Behold!
(https://redmalehummingbird.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/tumblr_static_white_knight.jpg)
-
Wow, George missing the point, didn't expect that.
-
But this isn't an indictment of the military; it's an indictment of you. It would have been one thing if it was in the middle of a mission or something, like if one of your guys went down, but you had to keep moving forward, and so you left him to fend for himself, but this is nothing like that. You didn't stomp over a severely-injured man and hurt him further for the sake of completing a mission, defeating the enemy, serving your country, or even a misplaced sense of patriotism; you did it to win a stupid fucking contest. For your own selfish benefit, in other words. Really, the only part of this story that's a proper criticism of the military as an institution is the fact that they inexplicably rewarded you for almost killing one of your fellow soldiers.
-
Now you are almost getting it.