Why I Didn't Go Back in the Corps

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
pushharder wrote:
<<< [Cue boiling frog in water story] >>>

Absolutely right and this is by far the hottest the water’s ever been. Some people will have the meat rolling off their bones and still be bubbling an enthusiastic “yes we can”[/quote]

You guys are missing my point completely… My point had nothing to do with whether or not the current system needs lots of real change–surely it does. My point was that seat belt laws and smoking bans certainly don’t constitute “turning up the boil” on the way to the sorts of whole sale human rights violations committed by China and the Soviet Union. I hardly think it’s “seat belt laws today, ban on free speech tomorrow”.

62

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
stokedporcupine8 wrote:
Surely you don’t advocate completely unregulated and unrestricted “rights” to gun ownership.

Surely you don’t know me very well, or else you wouldn’t need to ask this question.

I believe the only firearms regulation the federal government should be involved in is ensuring that the arms manufactured and sold in the United States are structurally sound and reliable, and that the ammunition is accurate and free from defects.

Other than that, I agree with the commonsense gun laws enacted by Vermont and Alaska, and look forward to the day when other states follow suit.

Yep. Guns are the greatest liberator in the history of the world. If the tax collector is greated by someone with a 12 gauge, then taxes are a lot more likely to be fair.
[/quote]

Does that mean Johny the convicted rapist and murderer gets a 12 gauge too?

63

[quote]stokedporcupine8 wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
pushharder wrote:
<<< [Cue boiling frog in water story] >>>

Absolutely right and this is by far the hottest the water’s ever been. Some people will have the meat rolling off their bones and still be bubbling an enthusiastic “yes we can”

You guys are missing my point completely… My point had nothing to do with whether or not the current system needs lots of real change–surely it does. My point was that seat belt laws and smoking bans certainly don’t constitute “turning up the boil” on the way to the sorts of whole sale human rights violations committed by China and the Soviet Union. I hardly think it’s “seat belt laws today, ban on free speech tomorrow”. [/quote]

That’s exactly what it has been and is now more than never. The very fact that a radical nanny state leftist like Obama can be elected in this country is proof positive of just how successful it’s been.

64

[quote]stokedporcupine8 wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
stokedporcupine8 wrote:
Surely you don’t advocate completely unregulated and unrestricted “rights” to gun ownership.

Surely you don’t know me very well, or else you wouldn’t need to ask this question.

I believe the only firearms regulation the federal government should be involved in is ensuring that the arms manufactured and sold in the United States are structurally sound and reliable, and that the ammunition is accurate and free from defects.

Other than that, I agree with the commonsense gun laws enacted by Vermont and Alaska, and look forward to the day when other states follow suit.

Yep. Guns are the greatest liberator in the history of the world. If the tax collector is greated by someone with a 12 gauge, then taxes are a lot more likely to be fair.

Does that mean Johny the convicted rapist and murderer gets a 12 gauge too? [/quote]

Johnny has an easier time getting his weapons now than law abiding citizens do. If you doubt that I’ll give you directions for a nice tour of some choice Detroit neighborhoods where you’re liable to get your ass shot off for showing up by some friendly convicted felons who have no trouble outgunning the Police.

65

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
stokedporcupine8 wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
stokedporcupine8 wrote:
Surely you don’t advocate completely unregulated and unrestricted “rights” to gun ownership.

Surely you don’t know me very well, or else you wouldn’t need to ask this question.

I believe the only firearms regulation the federal government should be involved in is ensuring that the arms manufactured and sold in the United States are structurally sound and reliable, and that the ammunition is accurate and free from defects.

Other than that, I agree with the commonsense gun laws enacted by Vermont and Alaska, and look forward to the day when other states follow suit.

Yep. Guns are the greatest liberator in the history of the world. If the tax collector is greated by someone with a 12 gauge, then taxes are a lot more likely to be fair.

Does that mean Johny the convicted rapist and murderer gets a 12 gauge too?

Johnny has an easier time getting his weapons now than law abiding citizens do. If you doubt that I’ll give you directions for a nice tour of some choice Detroit neighborhoods where you’re liable to get your ass shot off for showing up by some friendly convicted felons who have no trouble outgunning the Police.[/quote]

How easy it is for a criminal to get a weapon is another issue entirely. The fact that Johny can get a gun sans permit doesn’t mean that we might as well do away with permits… or mean that permits are somehow a violation of your rights.

The only reason Johny can more easily get a gun then you is because you have to file for a permit. It’s not like you can’t get a gun yourself…

66

[quote]stokedporcupine8 wrote:
The fact that Johny can get a gun sans permit doesn’t mean that we might as well do away with permits… or mean that permits are somehow a violation of your rights.

The only reason Johny can more easily get a gun then you is because you have to file for a permit. It’s not like you can’t get a gun yourself… [/quote]

If johnny can get a gun sans permit it means that permits are not doing what they are intended to (deter gun crimes) which means they serve no purpose.

Criminals don’t care about permits so its not like a permit helps police solve crimes. It just gives the police reasons to hold a lawful person’s private information on record.

67

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
stokedporcupine8 wrote:
The fact that Johny can get a gun sans permit doesn’t mean that we might as well do away with permits… or mean that permits are somehow a violation of your rights.

The only reason Johny can more easily get a gun then you is because you have to file for a permit. It’s not like you can’t get a gun yourself…

If johnny can get a gun sans permit it means that permits are not doing what they are intended to (deter gun crimes) which means they serve no purpose.

Criminals don’t care about permits so its not like a permit helps police solve crimes. It just gives the police reasons to hold a lawful person’s private information on record.[/quote]

God you guys are great at confusing issues just to be right… For the point I was raising the question was NEVER whether or not gun regulations were effective in doing their job, the question was whether or not in principle these were a form of justifiable governmental regulation. As a matter of principle, I argued that yes indeed gun regulations were in principle a justifiable example of government regulation, since we can imagine people like Johny the rapist and murderer who shouldn’t get guns. The question of whether such gun regulations are effective is a completely different issue that does not effect the truth of the former.

You could argue in the end that if the regulations weren’t effective then they weren’t justifiable in the first place, but that would be a very pragmatic argument and I thought you good christian folk hated pragmatic ethical arguments… oh well. This sort of argument is like saying “oh well, I know we REALLY shouldn’t kill, but because some mean bad people won’t listen anyway, we might as well kill”. Doesn’t that sound familiar? “oh well, I know there are some cases were government regulation is justifiable, but because some mean bad people won’t listen anyway, we might as well not have any government regulation.”.

You know, for being people who claim to believe in absolute standards on ethics you guys sure do appeal to frivolous pragmatic arguments all the time…

68

[quote]stokedporcupine8 wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
stokedporcupine8 wrote:
Surely you don’t advocate completely unregulated and unrestricted “rights” to gun ownership.

Surely you don’t know me very well, or else you wouldn’t need to ask this question.

I believe the only firearms regulation the federal government should be involved in is ensuring that the arms manufactured and sold in the United States are structurally sound and reliable, and that the ammunition is accurate and free from defects.

Other than that, I agree with the commonsense gun laws enacted by Vermont and Alaska, and look forward to the day when other states follow suit.

Yep. Guns are the greatest liberator in the history of the world. If the tax collector is greated by someone with a 12 gauge, then taxes are a lot more likely to be fair.

Does that mean Johny the convicted rapist and murderer gets a 12 gauge too? [/quote]

Johny the convicted rapist and murderer should have been hung to death.

69

I have the God given inalienable right to self defense commensurate with reasonably anticipated contemporary threats. So no, NO government can justifiably impede my ability to protect myself and those for whom I am responsible. What particular effect any given regulation may or may not have is relevant to nothing beyond it’s own tyrannical illegitimacy.

I would rather Johnny not be armed, but he is. I would rather somebody handed out firearms for free to every American who wanted one from ice cream trucks with their full concealed carry powers intact than have to justify my preexisting right to a hypocritical bureaucrat who is protected 24/7 by armed personnel himself.

70

[quote]stokedporcupine8 wrote:
We could argue this sort of point all day… but two points: (1) the idea that the government can confiscate your property if you do not pay your taxes does not entail that you are merely a “renter” paying “rent”. Taxes aren’t rent. You pay taxes, at least idealistically, out of some sense of civic duty to pay for the services that the government renders for you–you know, like those school thingy’s you probably don’t like sending your kids too. Besides, as you guys like to point out, if you didn’t want to pay taxes you didn’t have to buy the house, no? (Sound familiar? If you didn’t want to breath in smoke you didn’t… ) Anyway, (2) In some sense you are just a “renter”, get over it. The modern idea of being a citizen is a lot better then the idea of being a subject… no?
[/quote]

Well it is obvious that if you can not distinguish between shelter and leisure you are not being logical. We all know you cannot argue with an illogical person, so I suggest no one talk to this buffoon until he decides to play along with things called logical thought processes.

  • Brother
71

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
stokedporcupine8 wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
stokedporcupine8 wrote:
Surely you don’t advocate completely unregulated and unrestricted “rights” to gun ownership.

Surely you don’t know me very well, or else you wouldn’t need to ask this question.

I believe the only firearms regulation the federal government should be involved in is ensuring that the arms manufactured and sold in the United States are structurally sound and reliable, and that the ammunition is accurate and free from defects.

Other than that, I agree with the commonsense gun laws enacted by Vermont and Alaska, and look forward to the day when other states follow suit.

Yep. Guns are the greatest liberator in the history of the world. If the tax collector is greated by someone with a 12 gauge, then taxes are a lot more likely to be fair.

Does that mean Johny the convicted rapist and murderer gets a 12 gauge too?

Johny the convicted rapist and murderer should have been hung to death.[/quote]

Or shot to death by his first potential victim.

74

I’ll let you guys worry about set belt laws while I go and do something more important.

76

[quote]stokedporcupine8 wrote:
I’ll let you guys worry about set belt laws while I go and do something more important. [/quote]

I don’t know if I’ll understand people like you. You are clearly a smart guy, but you are wizzing down the slippery slope, wind in your face, snickering at those with their fingernails in the ground trying to slow down as you go by.

You really don’t feel that water heatin up do ya?

77

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Porky, if one should need a permit to carry a gun because the Second Amendment clearly leaves gun regulation wide open - according to you anyway - then one should also need a permit for:

the right to speak our minds

the right to print a newspaper or blog online

the right to worship as we please

the right to petition our government

the right to deny the quartering of soldiers in our homes

the right to have search and seizure regulated

our rights to provisions concerning prosecution

the right to a speedy trial, witnesses, etc.

the right to a trial by jury

the right to avoid excessive bail and cruel punishment

Porky, be consistent and admit if the government can justifiably require a permit to possess a gun it can also justifiably require a permit to access these other rights.[/quote]

I never said that “because the Second Amendment clearly leaves gun regulation wide open” that “one should need a permit to carry a gun”. I said that the second Amendment’s wording does not preclude the possibility of having some sort of mild regulatory system in place to help keep guns out of the hands of people who shouldn’t have them.

Hence if you were to be consistent about applying my argument to the other amendments, then the argument isn’t that one should need permits to do all those things, but only that the amendments don’t preclude the possibility of some forms of reasonable and mild regulation. For example, such reasonable and mild regulation already exist for many of those amendments. One cannot arbitrary publish ANYTHING one wants in a newspaper, as things like false defamation of character aren’t protected (ie, I can sue you for it and appeal to the first amendment won’t protect you).

In any case the idea that the second amendment guarantees us the right to absolutely no government regulation of firearms is as silly as the idea that the first amendment guarantees my “right” to falsely defame someone.

So as you see, I am perfectly consistent…

78

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
stokedporcupine8 wrote:
We could argue this sort of point all day… but two points: (1) the idea that the government can confiscate your property if you do not pay your taxes does not entail that you are merely a “renter” paying “rent”. Taxes aren’t rent. You pay taxes, at least idealistically, out of some sense of civic duty to pay for the services that the government renders for you–you know, like those school thingy’s you probably don’t like sending your kids too. Besides, as you guys like to point out, if you didn’t want to pay taxes you didn’t have to buy the house, no? (Sound familiar? If you didn’t want to breath in smoke you didn’t… ) Anyway, (2) In some sense you are just a “renter”, get over it. The modern idea of being a citizen is a lot better then the idea of being a subject… no?

Well it is obvious that if you can not distinguish between shelter and leisure you are not being logical. We all know you cannot argue with an illogical person, so I suggest no one talk to this buffoon until he decides to play along with things called logical thought processes.

  • Brother[/quote]

You do realize that logic has to do with form, not content, right?

The argument form is something like “if you don’t want …, then don’t buy/engage in/do … ; you don’t want … ; therefore, don’t buy/engage in/do …”.

If your point is that some difference between “shelter and leisure” precludes one from applying this argument form to buying a house, then that is not a logical point, but something else.

Anyway… I’d bicker about whether or not your “shelter vs leisure” distinction matters–going to restaurants for food is not always a matter of leisure, while there are other forms of shelter, apartments, that don’t require paying taxes, etc. etc.–but that’s besides the point. Really my mentioning this argument was just an ironic retort, nothing overly substantive. My substantive points where that the government’s ability to confiscate property doesn’t necessarily make you a renter and that in the sense that you are a citizen of a nation you are in some sense a “renter”, so get over it.

79

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
stokedporcupine8 wrote:
I’ll let you guys worry about set belt laws while I go and do something more important.

I don’t know if I’ll understand people like you. You are clearly a smart guy, but you are wizzing down the slippery slope, wind in your face, snickering at those with their fingernails in the ground trying to slow down as you go by.

You really don’t feel that water heatin up do ya?[/quote]

Again (for what, the third time?) I wouldn’t disagree that America is going down some wrong paths… but I hardly think things like seat belt laws and gun permits are indicative of some fall towards totalitarianism. Especially considering that such laws are state matters, not federal, I hardly see the seeds of some grand conspiracy to slowly bowl the American public into acceptance of some new regime.

I must rather think it’s like stumbling haphazardly down some rocky path, trying to pick myself up while snickering at those demanding to know who pushed them down the path in the first place.

80

[quote]
I never said that “because the Second Amendment clearly leaves gun regulation wide open” that “one should need a permit to carry a gun”. I said that the second Amendment’s wording does not preclude the possibility of having some sort of mild regulatory system in place to help keep guns out of the hands of people who shouldn’t have them.

Hence if you were to be consistent about applying my argument to the other amendments, then the argument isn’t that one should need permits to do all those things, but only that the amendments don’t preclude the possibility of some forms of reasonable and mild regulation. For example, such reasonable and mild regulation already exist for many of those amendments. One cannot arbitrary publish ANYTHING one wants in a newspaper, as things like false defamation of character aren’t protected (ie, I can sue you for it and appeal to the first amendment won’t protect you).

In any case the idea that the second amendment guarantees us the right to absolutely no government regulation of firearms is as silly as the idea that the first amendment guarantees my “right” to falsely defame someone.

So as you see, I am perfectly consistent…[/quote]
Isn’t the ‘mild’ in ‘mild regulatory system’ in subject to interpretation? I mean what are we using to peg the definitions of ‘mild’ and ‘far out, man’?

My friend’s a felon and he has a gun. He knows where to get a bunch more too pretty easily. The thing about being a felon(I’m not talking about you, MaximusB!) is that you know a lot of people who break/have broken the law and simply don’t care what the law says, so it’s easy to get what you want. Frankly, I envy some of their networking skillz.

If you’ve ever read any of the founding fathers on the issue of gun control, most of them thought that, per natural law, arms control was the highest form of tyranny. So the idea that the 2nd ammendment leaves open the possibility of gun control is not at all in keeping with the historical facts/arguments surrounding the 2nd amendment. I’m open to being proven wrong, of course, but I’m pretty sure ahead of time that your argument is just going to be a regurgitation of various Obamaoist constitutional legal arguments - and I use the term ‘constitutional’ very loosely - to wit, that the Constitution is a ‘flawed document’ in need of revision and basically subject to the arbitrary interpretation of the liberal judge that happens to be legislating from the bench at the time.

Aside from that, if they banned guns completely, I would still own them. They’re easy to get. How does that make you feel - that I and most other gun owners would simply ignore the law, as many of them are doing in California already? Pretty powerless, huh?