[quote]pushharder wrote:
However, it’s clear to anyone with an elementary school education that vast increases in numbers of guns do not cause relatively vast increases in violent crimes as has been trumpeted by anti-gunners for decades now.
They’ve been consistently wrong, wrong, wrong. Their theories cannot be trusted.
[/quote]
^This.
It should be clear that the vast majority of crime is a result of disparities in the force available to people, not the existence of force itself. Criminals don’t often attempt to victimize someone that stands a decent chance of defeating them. [/quote]
It was less “more guns, more crime” than “more, guns, less crime.”
You’re assuming criminals have perfect knowledge of the distribution of capabilities, in addition to rough material parity being an effective means of establishing deterrence. Historically, it isn’t. Did you not in a past thread advocate the private ownership of nuclear weapons, and explicitly Osama bin Laden, to counter the “disparity in force” that states possess?
[quote]Bismark wrote:
It was less “more guns, more crime” than “more, guns, less crime.”[/quote]
-I don’t really know what you’re responding to here.
[quote]
You’re assuming criminals have perfect knowledge of the distribution of capabilities[/quote]-I’m not, and it’s not necessary.[quote], in addition to rough material parity being an effective means of establishing deterrence.[/quote]-No, but if Z is contemplating robbery, Y obviously being more capable of defending himself than X certainly makes Y less likely to be chosen as a victim. [quote]Historically, it isn’t.[/quote]-Really? I think that you are going to jump from private criminals to State criminals here. However, the above still applies. There is always a risk vs. gain. If Bill Gates walked down the street carrying his entire fortune with him, criminals would likely risk attacking him, regardless of how heavily armed he would be. The U.S. is the greatest empire that the world has ever seen-others will always occasionally attack it. That’s why I believe dropping our entangling alliances, removing our military from foreign lands, and allowing the country to divide is in the best interest of individual citizens. If George W. Bush, Barack Obama, Warren Buffett, or George Soros was suddenly appointed King of the United States, I suspect you would quickly see a large number of people agree with me.[quote]Did you not in a past thread advocate the private ownership of nuclear weapons[/quote]-I have no more problem with my neighbor owning a nuclear weapon than I do anyone else owning or controlling one. [quote], and explicitly Osama bin Laden,[/quote]-I don’t believe that I ever advocated bin Laden possessing nuclear weapons; I don’t believe that going to war over the belief that an elderly man in the third world will possibly, someday, possess one makes a bit of sense. I do think that obtaining a warrant for him, following 9/11, and then pursuing and attempting to arrest him would have been the proper response. [quote] to counter the “disparity in force” that states possess?[/quote]-As long as nuclear weapons exist and are possessed by any entity, I see no reason to fear one being in private hands any more so than one being in official hands. I don’t believe that being elected/taking power/inheriting power makes one any less likely to do something stupid with a nuclear weapon than a citizen with enough intelligence and money to come into possession of one. Fear of the nuclear weaponry of the U.S. is certainly a factor in keeping U.S. citizens cowed.
I have no more problem with my neighbor owning a nuclear weapon than I do anyone else owning or controlling one…
[/quote]
Odd. I would’ve thought that people are “different” from each other and that some people pose more of a threat than others. You need to think for yourself and stop attaching yourself to radical positions just because they accord with the brand name libertarianism (copyright, Murray Rothbard 1964) to which you adhere. This particular craziness reflects badly upon you.
Not “advocate” but rather you said OBL has a “right” to thermonuclear ordnance. This is an example of what I meant when I said radical libertarians should be concerned with their own rights primarily and not concern themselves with other people’s rights. Leaving aside the validity of natural law applying theoretically to genocidal maniacs and thermonuclear weapons, why the fuck would you care about the “rights” of non-US citizens?
Oh that’s right, I forgot. You don’t believe in borders or countries; you’re an internationalist. It’s one thing to be a Utopianist; quote another to be a dystopianist. Why not fantasise about a future that would be good to live in as opposed to a future that would be a nightmare? A lot of radical libertarians have realised that a nationalist libertarian ideology is preferable to an internationalist one. Transitioning away from an internationalist ideology is the first step towards sanity too. It allows you to drop the craziness about open borders for example.
That’s not the reason we went to war. We went to war to neutralise the threat of AQ in whatever form that threat takes. And please, don’t bother with the “we just made them angrier” shtick. OBL carried out a fucking Pearl Harbor scale massacre of US civilians on US soil. He was a major threat and everyone in their right mind knew it. The only Congressman to vote against it was the radical left-wing nutjob Barbara Lee - a former Black Panthers member. Even Ron Paul voted for it, albeit he planned not to do so but reconsidered the effect it would have on his reputation.
Of course “you” think that. The brand name libertarianism you slavishly adhere to considers non-state actors to be incapable of waging war on the United States therefore they must be treated as common criminals. And of course, they cannot be killed because that would violate their “rights”. And of course, if we’re pretending that the Constitution applies to non-US citizens then we have to accord them due process too right?
So instead of waging war against this entity that is waging a war of annihilation against us, we pretend that they’re garden variety criminals and we pretend that the Constitution applies to them. This would necessarily involve not arresting and certainly not harming any al Qaeda operative unless we have enough evidence to convict them in a US criminal court beyond reasonable doubt.
Tell me, why again are we extending Constitutional rights to non-US citizens and why are we pretending that non-state actors are common criminals?
Actually, deep down you do see why however you’ve adopted this brand and all that goes with it so you must adhere to the party line. No thinking for oneself; no deviation from the Ron Paul/Murray Rothbard system.
Okay, I’ll explain it. There are differences that matter that are unrelated to whether the entity is a state or non-state actor. The fundamentally important difference is the level of threat posed by a particular entity. For example, the government of the United Kingdom is less likely to kill me with a thermonuclear device than is say, China. It’s this potential for the nuclear device to be used that is of primary importance and the potential is different depending on the entity. Understand? Furthermore, there is also an element of security involved in assessing the threat - ie, is the nuclear device safely stored and guarded by individuals and how effective and reliable are these security measures? These questions are of particular importance when considering a non-state actor’s possession of nuclear weapons.
^^So given the above, a rational person who is not trying to shock by being radical and who does not slavishly adhere to some radical ideology would argue that:
OBL having possession of a thermonuclear device constitutes more of a potential threat than the United States government having possession of a nuclear device.
And
A non-state actor constitutes a greater security concern in relation to nuclear weapons due to the level of safeguards required to store/maintain/guard nuclear weapons.
In fact, a rational person would consider all of this “stating the obvious” and might wonder why they are bothering to even address such an irrational post.
Again, I think you do see the difference deep down. For example, the type of person usually elected as head of state in a Western parliamentary democracy is likely to be vetted to some extent by their own party and the voters; they’re likely to be more “moderate” in many ways than a random individual picked off the street. They’re likely to be concerned with “practical” matters, whether self interested or otherwise, and they’re unlikely to have a radical ideological mindset. And then there’s the safeguards a nation state is able to employ that a non-state actor is unable to employ.
Actually no, that’s not correct. A rational person who lives in the United States does not believe it to be likely that the federal government would suddenly detonate a thermonuclear device over an American city. They would consider that “very unlikely” and such an idea is unlikely to even enter their mind as a possibility. The average US citizen does not weigh up the threat of a nuclear attack from the government when making decisions. In short, the suggestion that the US government, or even any government on earth for that matter, maintains their power domestically via a perceived threat to attack the citizens with thermonuclear weapons, is utter nonsense. Everything you’ve said above makes you sound ridiculous not edgy or cool.
Edit: What you’re actually doing is undermining the arguments of people with genuine concerns about government overreach. Not even the hardest of hard tyrannies constitute a nuclear threat to their own citizens and the US is not a hard tyranny it’s a soft tyranny.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Odd. I would’ve thought that people are “different” from each other and that some people pose more of a threat than others. You need to think for yourself and stop attaching yourself to radical positions just because they accord with the brand name libertarianism (copyright, Murray Rothbard 1964) to which you adhere. This particular craziness reflects badly upon you.[/quote]
-People are certainly different from each other. Some people(those with the greatest capability) certainly do pose more of a threat than others.
[quote]
Not “advocate” but rather you said OBL has a “right” to thermonuclear ordnance.[/quote]-I do believe this. Possessing something is not an offense. Any action that put another country in reasonable fear(again, mere possession is not enough to put a rational individual in fear…it’s the difference between possessing and brandishing a firearm) should be punished. [quote]This is an example of what I meant when I said radical libertarians should be concerned with their own rights primarily and not concern themselves with other people’s rights.[/quote]-I couldn’t care less about others’ rights(well, maybe a bit, but I’m not overly concerned with it), but I do recognize that, because rights are an abstract, I will have no rights that others don’t. [quote]Leaving aside the validity of natural law applying theoretically to genocidal maniacs and thermonuclear weapons, why the fuck would you care about the “rights” of non-US citizens?[/quote]-As I said above, I don’t particularly. I don’t even care about the rights of other U.S. citizens; however, I will lose the same rights that I ask a government to take from others.
[quote]Oh that’s right, I forgot. You don’t believe in borders or countries; you’re an internationalist.[/quote]-Truthfully, I believe in strong borders, but only in a voluntary society. I just argue against U.S. borders because I do not think it’s worth defending at this time. [quote]It’s one thing to be a Utopianist; quote another to be a dystopianist.[/quote]-I agree. [quote]Why not fantasise about a future that would be good to live in as opposed to a future that would be a nightmare?[/quote]-Realistically, how much worse is one state than another? Would one not permit me to follow its rules the same as another? [quote]A lot of radical libertarians have realised that a nationalist libertarian ideology is preferable to an internationalist one.[/quote]-I completely agree with them(Hans Hoppe is probably my favorite of the Austrians/Anarcho-Capitalists), but the U.S. is not going to become more free without a collapse. [quote]Transitioning away from an internationalist ideology is the first step towards sanity too. It allows you to drop the craziness about open borders for example.[/quote]-I completely agree with this, too. However, that can of worms(leeches?) has been opened, and it’s impossible to round up all of them-better to give the worms a reason to find a new home.
[quote]
That’s not the reason we went to war. We went to war to neutralise the threat of AQ in whatever form that threat takes. And please, don’t bother with the “we just made them angrier” shtick. OBL carried out a fucking Pearl Harbor scale massacre of US civilians on US soil. He was a major threat and everyone in their right mind knew it.[/quote]-He was a very limited threat…hell, he had to use U.S. civilian equipment to do his greatest damage. [quote]The only Congressman to vote against it was the radical left-wing nutjob Barbara Lee - a former Black Panthers member. Even Ron Paul voted for it, albeit he planned not to do so but reconsidered the effect it would have on his reputation.[/quote]-I am not placing blame on anyone for the U.S. going to war. I now have the advantage of over a decade of hindsight, and I can see that going to war with…something…has…cost the U.S. taxpayers money.
[quote]
Of course “you” think that. The brand name libertarianism you slavishly adhere to considers non-state actors to be incapable of waging war on the United States therefore they must be treated as common criminals. And of course, they cannot be killed because that would violate their “rights”. And of course, if we’re pretending that the Constitution applies to non-US citizens then we have to accord them due process too right?[/quote]
-If those who flew U.S. planes into U.S. buildings on U.S. soil had been associated with the Chinese government, I would feel the same way. I do believe that bin Laden should have been arrested alive, if possible. If for no other reason, because he had valuable information. If he resisted to the point of posing a threat to those arresting him, then he should have been killed. I only believe that bin Laden should have been afforded due process if an illegal from Mexico who gets caught stealing should.
[quote]
So instead of waging war against this entity that is waging a war of annihilation against us, we pretend that they’re garden variety criminals and we pretend that the Constitution applies to them. This would necessarily involve not arresting and certainly not harming any al Qaeda operative unless we have enough evidence to convict them in a US criminal court beyond reasonable doubt.[/quote]
-That would be fine with me. If they’re willing to peacefully submit to arrest, then I see no reason to kill them without a trial. Arrests are made with probable cause-not enough evidence to convict.
[quote]
Tell me, why again are we extending Constitutional rights to non-US citizens and why are we pretending that non-state actors are common criminals?[/quote]
-I don’t particularly care about extending Constitutional rights to non-U.S. citizens, but I think that it is a good idea to have a trial to ensure that we are on firm-footing and merely defending ourselves(not initiating).
[quote]
Actually, deep down you do see why however you’ve adopted this brand and all that goes with it so you must adhere to the party line. No thinking for oneself; no deviation from the Ron Paul/Murray Rothbard system.[/quote]-Here, you’re wrong. I truly don’t fear any earthly entity more than I do the U.S. government. Would some be worse with the same power? Certainly. Would some be better with the same power? Most likely. Is there another with anywhere close to its ability to inflict damage? Not that I know of.
[quote]Okay, I’ll explain it. There are differences that matter that are unrelated to whether the entity is a state or non-state actor.[/quote]-agree [quote]The fundamentally important difference is the level of threat posed by a particular entity.[/quote]-agree [quote]For example, the government of the United Kingdom is less likely to kill me with a thermonuclear device than is say, China.[/quote]-Not true, according to this http://www.businessinsider.com/nine-nations-have-nukes--heres-how-many-each-country-has-2014-6 , which says that China does not have any deployed warheads. However, because your country’s government is more cooperative with the government of the U.K. than with the government of China, it is probably true that China would pose a greater danger to Australia than the U.K. if it possessed the same capability. [quote]It’s this potential for the nuclear device to be used that is of primary importance and the potential is different depending on the entity.[/quote]-agree [quote]Understand?[/quote]-yes [quote]Furthermore, there is also an element of security involved in assessing the threat - ie, is the nuclear device safely stored and guarded by individuals and how effective and reliable are these security measures?[/quote]-agree [quote]These questions are of particular importance when considering a non-state actor’s possession of nuclear weapons.[/quote]Why are they of particular importance in the case of a non-state actor?
[quote]
OBL having possession of a thermonuclear device constitutes more of a potential threat than the United States government having possession of a nuclear device.[/quote]
-agree(at least more of a threat to those paying taxes to the U.S.)
[quote]
2. A non-state actor constitutes a greater security concern in relation to nuclear weapons due to the level of safeguards required to store/maintain/guard nuclear weapons.[/quote]
-If one possesses a nuclear weapon and the ability to deploy it, I’m not sure that he would still be considered a non-state actor.
[quote]
Again, I think you do see the difference deep down. For example, the type of person usually elected as head of state in a Western parliamentary democracy is likely to be vetted to some extent by their own party and the voters; they’re likely to be more “moderate” in many ways than a random individual picked off the street.[/quote]-agree [quote]They’re likely to be concerned with “practical” matters, whether self interested or otherwise, and they’re unlikely to have a radical ideological mindset.[/quote]-I agree that he is likely to be concerned with reelection and power. Hence, he will be as moderate as necessary. BHO is about as moderate as I can imagine a person being(black, white, and foreign; effeminate and seemingly gay, yet male and married; descended from Muslims, named like a Muslim, yet attends Christian churches; etc.).
[quote]
Actually no, that’s not correct.[/quote]-It certainly is correct. Mention standing up to the government to the average gun-fearing progressive, and you will likely get a response like, “How effective is that hunting rifle against nuclear weaponry?” [quote]A rational person who lives in the United States does not believe it to be likely that the federal government would suddenly detonate a thermonuclear device over an American city.[/quote]-I absolutely agree; however, rational folks have no more say-so than the irrational in the U.S. [quote]They would consider that “very unlikely” and such an idea is unlikely to even enter their mind as a possibility.[/quote]-If we’re talking about rational minds, then I agree. If we’re talking about progressive minds, then, again, ask one about the effectiveness of armed resistance against a nuclear state. [quote]The average US citizen does not weigh up the threat of a nuclear attack from the government when making decisions.[/quote]-The average U.S. citizen weighs almost nothing when making decisions. Ever seen Idiocracy? [quote]In short, the suggestion that the US government, or even any government on earth for that matter, maintains their power domestically via a perceived threat to attack the citizens with thermonuclear weapons, is utter nonsense.[/quote]-I believe that the perceived threat is certainly A(not THE) factor.
-I definitely agree, but the soft tyranny would become hard if people resisted. I also agree that no state would use nuclear weapons on its own people. I have said as much in the past. In fact, I don’t believe that one state would do anything to another if it believed that it would end up killing the vast majority of the other state before gaining compliance. Winning a vacant piece of nuked land would be a pretty insignificant prize to one who is looking for taxpayers.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
-People are certainly different from each other. Some people(those with the greatest capability) certainly do pose more of a threat than others.
[/quote]
Irrelevant as we’re talking about the [b]same level of capability - ie, nuclear capability. And you argued that OBL was a nuclear capability is no more or less of a threat than the US government with a nuclear capability.
An offence is whatever the law says is an offence. Whether or not an unjust law is law is another question.
Not sure what you’re talking about here.
We were talking about non-US citizens. You are presumably a US citizen so there is no precedent set relevant to you. There is no reason whatsoever you should care whether non-US citizens are accorded all the same rights that you are by the US government.
Nope. You’re a US citizen; OBL was not. Further, OBL never had any “rights” under the US Constitution to begin with so it’s not a matter of them being “taken away”.
The US is a voluntary society to the extent that you can leave anytime you want. It’s not East Germany.
When millions of third worlders are flooding across and draining the public treasury and turning much of the SW into a foreign country, it’s “not worth defending?” What?
[quote]-Realistically, how much worse is one state than another? Would one not permit me to follow its rules the same as another?
[/quote]
Again, not sure what you’re saying here. You’re saying that other nation states aren’t much better or worse to live in than the US? Surely, that is not what you’re saying?
Lol! And you’re trying to bring that about? Revolution is like rolling the die BTW. You could end up with something much worse.
Obviously he was a major threat because he carried out the largest attack on US soil in history and was involved and scores of major terrorist attacks on Americans and Westerners all over the world. It’s disingenuous to say he was a “limited threat”. Just the damage to the economy and the massive security measures put in place as a result of 911 made it an enormous event of unprecedented scale.
[quote]I am not placing blame on anyone for the U.S. going to war. I now have the advantage of over a decade of hindsight, and I can see that going to war with…something…has…cost the U.S. taxpayers money.
[/quote]
So in hindsight leave OBL be and let him plot another 911?
That makes even less sense. Another nation state starts waging war against you - against the civilian population - and you try to arrest the people they send against you? Except the ones launching suicide attacks of course as they can’t be arrested when they’re dead. Not sure who you would actually arrest under such a scenario. No one I presume. Just let a foreign nation state wage war against you and do nothing. Really, this is just too silly.
I agree but I don’t think US military should risk their lives unnecessarily. Under your conditions the US military would have to leave many terrorists alone to continue attacking the US because they’re not somewhere where they can be arrested. You’d want US military to have risk their lives unnecessarily and you’d have terrorists who can’t be arrested continue to murder US civilians? As I said, this is all ridiculous and I’m sure you know it.
And if he was say, in a location and situation in which arrest is not possible you’d leave him alone to plot another 911. Got it.
A Mexican stealing is not comparable to an international terrorist with state sponsorship waging a genocidal war of annihilation against American men, women and children. Surely? One deserves a fair trial, the other deserves a hellfire missile or a bullet in the face. Surely?
Neither do I. If it’s in US interests and possible to take a terrorist alive they should do so. If not they should kill them by any means. Further, terrorists should not get a civilian, criminal trial. They should be either held indefinitely at US discretion as has been standard practice for nearly a century - the Geneva Convention was drafted to allow this. It was never a controversial thing after 911 and it’s amazing to me that people see something wrong or unjust about it. Even angrychicken was saying that Gitmo detainees should get due process and a criminal trial - something they have no right to under international law and with good reason. When someone is waging actual war against you, you wage war back. You don’t fight them in the courtroom.
Obviously. However, the burden of proof in the courtroom guides whether a cop is likely to arrest you. He’s not going to arrest you if he thinks he won’t be able to meet the court’s burden of proof.
Initiating? Lol. War is existential. States have a duty to protect their citizens from external threats and it’s not possible to wage war through the criminal courts. It’s ridiculous to suggest such a thing. That’s why no one in their right minds suggests such a thing; only people like Ron Paul. There’s not a single serious person anywhere on earth who would advocate such a course. It’s suicidal and no civilian population would put up with a government that tried to operate in such a manner.
That’s a kind of vague thing to say. I’ll put it like this. If you were wanted for the same crime in North Korea and the US who would you rather be caught, tried and imprisoned by? Obviously, the answer is the US, which puts things into a meaningful context. All states are not alike. The US is one of the freest societies in history and it’s an anomaly. Most the world still live under brutal, tyrannical, corrupt and impoverished regimes.
That’s not correct. Your link is misleading as it is based on open source intelligence only and it uses a misleading definition of “deployed”. China is one of the few nations on earth with ICBM capability. They also have loads of subs equipped with nuclear missiles and they have a formidable carrier fleet.
Besides, that’s irrelevant as we were talking hypothetically anyway.
Not probably, but rather “definitely”. Although as I’ve said before an intentional first strike is highly unlikely. The concern is a nuclear conflict breaking out by accident. It nearly happened several times during the Cold War. But again, that’s off topic.
Because a non-state actor doesn’t have the security or safety systems that a state has. I feel foolish even discussing this. That individuals have a “right” to thermonuclear weapons and individuals are of no more or less a concern than nation states with nukes? Come off it Nick.
Well, a terrorist with an old Soviet nuke on a rusty container ship is not a state actor.
That’s not moderate it’s radical which I assume is your point. However, BHO is an anomaly. At least, politicians like him were on the fringe up until recent times. George McGovern was the first hardcore leftist to head the Democrats and Obama is the second. And yes, you’re right. It is a worry.
That would be a dumb response. The conventional forces and counterterrorism capability is what makes revolution infeasible in a modern democracy. At least, that’s one of the things that makes it infeasible.
[quote]The average U.S. citizen weighs almost nothing when making decisions. Ever seen Idiocracy?
[/quote]
Then they’re not “cowed” by the government’s nuclear capability then are they?
No. No one in their right mind in the US is concerned that the government might nuke them. Even a foaming at the mouth black helicopter type isn’t worried about the government nuking them. And you know it.
But people wouldn’t resist unless it was a hard tyranny. You don’t risk your life and wage a guerrilla war against a soft tyranny. You engage in political action. You know, violence is to be avoided whenever possible and all that?
Then why would anyone, particularly US citizens, be “cowed” by their government’s nuclear capacity? I feel sorry for you having to defend such crazy positions. No wonder you back off on a lot of them when pressed.
[quote]
In fact, I don’t believe that one state would do anything to another if it believed that it would end up killing the vast majority of the other state before gaining compliance. Winning a vacant piece of nuked land would be a pretty insignificant prize to one who is looking for taxpayers.[/quote]
Yep. Although, if apocalyptic religious fanatics got their hands on nukes it would be a different story.
[quote]NickViar wrote:
I also agree that no state would use nuclear weapons on its own people. I have said as much in the past.
[/quote]
Then why would anyone, particularly US citizens, be “cowed” by their government’s nuclear capacity? I feel sorry for you having to defend such crazy positions. No wonder you back off on a lot of them when pressed.
[/quote]
-You must have missed what I said about the U.S. and Idiocracy. I honestly doubt that the bottom 50.00001% of U.S. citizens understands how unlikely it is that the U.S. government would use nuclear weapons against its citizens, even in the event of a civil war. Sadly, I think that 50.00001% may actually be an understatement.
The quotes got so screwed up/hard for me to follow that I didn’t try responding to the rest of your post. I don’t think we actually disagree on too much.
Actually, I did want to comment on this: “the massive security measures put in place as a result of 911 made it an enormous event of unprecedented scale.” I put the blame for that crap on the American people(and I include myself in that…granted, I was 15-years old on 9/11/01, but I was overcome with rah, rah, America-ism for a few years myself).
The quotes got so screwed up/hard for me to follow that I didn’t try responding to the rest of your post.
[/quote]
Yeah, sorry about that. I couldn’t fix it for some reason.
Lol! Yes we do. I fundamentally disagree with most of what you wrote. The stuff about arresting terrorists and trying them in criminal courts with due process; the stuff about the border being not worth defending etc. They’re the sort of things I feel strongly about and your positions are at polar odds with mine. Nothing wrong with disagreeing however.
[quote]
Actually, I did want to comment on this: “the massive security measures put in place as a result of 911 made it an enormous event of unprecedented scale.” I put the blame for that crap on the American people(and I include myself in that…granted, I was 15-years old on 9/11/01, but I was overcome with rah, rah, America-ism for a few years myself).[/quote]
I think the point you’re missing is that, however unpleasant, intrusive and even tyrannical these security measures are, to a large extent they were necessary and unavoidable. This is one of the reasons that minarchism(limited government) can’t last. For one thing, internal and external threats cause the government to overreach. For example, the Civil War. The internal threat required a massive increase in the size, scope and power of the federal government. It was unavoidable as the Union was facing an existential threat it could only defeat by empowering the federal government. It’s the same principle with the external threat of al Qaeda. You want the government to remain like it was pre-911 but it’s simply not possible.
I really don’t have much of a problem with this. Bring it on everywhere. If a sizable number of Americans feel so helpless that they are willing to ASK government agencies to inspect the contents of their properties, they’ll get what they deserve.
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
saw this on my friends facebook[/quote]
Easy to defeat–Fire extinguishers do not create fire when used. Guns do shoot bullets when fired. You will have to try harder to justify private firearm ownership.
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
saw this on my friends facebook[/quote]
Easy to defeat–Fire extinguishers do not create fire when used. Guns do shoot bullets when fired. You will have to try harder to justify private firearm ownership.[/quote]
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
saw this on my friends facebook[/quote]
Easy to defeat–Fire extinguishers do not create fire when used. Guns do shoot bullets when fired. You will have to try harder to justify private firearm ownership.[/quote]
You apparently didn’t get the visual metaphor.
[/quote]
I certainly did. Again, fire extinguishers are not used to create fires; guns are used to kill people. It was a cute attempt at justifying private fire ownership, but it failed. Taking away privately-owned guns will eliminate the source(tool used in) of many murders, right? Taking away privately-owned fire extinguishers will do nothing to combat the source(fire triangle) of fires.
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
saw this on my friends facebook[/quote]
Easy to defeat–Fire extinguishers do not create fire when used. Guns do shoot bullets when fired. You will have to try harder to justify private firearm ownership.[/quote]
You apparently didn’t get the visual metaphor.
[/quote]
I certainly did. Again, fire extinguishers are not used to create fires; guns are used to kill people. It was a cute attempt at justifying private fire ownership, but it failed. Taking away privately-owned guns will eliminate the source(tool used in) of many murders, right? Taking away privately-owned fire extinguishers will do nothing to combat the source(fire triangle) of fires.[/quote]
No you didn’t.
The issue is danger to yourself.
You have a fire start in your kitchen.
You’d rather not have a fire extinguisher that you can use to put out the fire.
You’d RATHER wait however long it takes for the Fire Department to show up.
So if someone breaks into your house, you’d RATHER wait for the cops to show up then to be able to defend yourself.
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
saw this on my friends facebook[/quote]
Easy to defeat–Fire extinguishers do not create fire when used. Guns do shoot bullets when fired. You will have to try harder to justify private firearm ownership.[/quote]
You apparently didn’t get the visual metaphor.
[/quote]
I certainly did. Again, fire extinguishers are not used to create fires; guns are used to kill people. It was a cute attempt at justifying private fire ownership, but it failed. Taking away privately-owned guns will eliminate the source(tool used in) of many murders, right? Taking away privately-owned fire extinguishers will do nothing to combat the source(fire triangle) of fires.[/quote]
No you didn’t.
The issue is danger to yourself.
You have a fire start in your kitchen.
You’d rather not have a fire extinguisher that you can use to put out the fire.
You’d RATHER wait however long it takes for the Fire Department to show up.
So if someone breaks into your house, you’d RATHER wait for the cops to show up then to be able to defend yourself.
Good luck with that.
[/quote]
Dooood, if guns are illegal, then the guy breaking into my house won’t have a gun with which to hurt me.
A fire starts in my kitchen? There’s a possibility it will happen unless the fire triangle is eliminated. I certainly want a fire extinguisher.
Someone breaks into my house without a gun? I gather my family in a room and call the police. I can stand by the door of the room with a ball bat and a knife in case the guy tries to come inside. His capabilities are limited by the absence of a firearm.
Are you going to argue that the police may take too long to arrive? Hire more police.
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
saw this on my friends facebook[/quote]
Easy to defeat–Fire extinguishers do not create fire when used. Guns do shoot bullets when fired. You will have to try harder to justify private firearm ownership.[/quote]
You apparently didn’t get the visual metaphor.
[/quote]
I certainly did. Again, fire extinguishers are not used to create fires; guns are used to kill people. It was a cute attempt at justifying private fire ownership, but it failed. Taking away privately-owned guns will eliminate the source(tool used in) of many murders, right? Taking away privately-owned fire extinguishers will do nothing to combat the source(fire triangle) of fires.[/quote]
No you didn’t.
The issue is danger to yourself.
You have a fire start in your kitchen.
You’d rather not have a fire extinguisher that you can use to put out the fire.
You’d RATHER wait however long it takes for the Fire Department to show up.
So if someone breaks into your house, you’d RATHER wait for the cops to show up then to be able to defend yourself.
Good luck with that.
[/quote]
Dooood, if guns are illegal, then the guy breaking into my house won’t have a gun with which to hurt me.
A fire starts in my kitchen? There’s a possibility it will happen unless the fire triangle is eliminated. I certainly want a fire extinguisher.
Someone breaks into my house without a gun? I gather my family in a room and call the police. I can stand by the door of the room with a ball bat and a knife in case the guy tries to come inside. His capabilities are limited by the absence of a firearm.
Are you going to argue that the police may take too long to arrive? Hire more police. [/quote]
What if your a woman and the man breaking in also has a knife or bat? Also because it happens so fast you can only grab a phone or weapon, which one do you choose?
