Evil Avatar  



Go Back   Evil Avatar > Geek Love > Totally Off Topic

» Sponsored Links


» Recent Threads
Alien Blackout Teased...
Last post by SpectralThundr
Today 05:27 PM
66 Replies, 4,192 Views
Creators of Popular...
Last post by Evil Avatar
Today 05:22 PM
1 Replies, 2 Views
Liberals gone wild
Last post by SpectralThundr
Today 05:20 PM
2,929 Replies, 395,943 Views
Full Throttle Remastered...
Last post by AlfredT
Today 04:50 PM
0 Replies, 2 Views
Lego The Hobbit Free on...
Last post by AlfredT
Today 04:27 PM
0 Replies, 22 Views
World War Z Game ~ First...
Last post by SpectralThundr
Today 01:45 PM
8 Replies, 576 Views
Beyond Good & Evil 2...
Last post by Chief Smash
Today 11:18 AM
21 Replies, 984 Views
Marvelís Spider-Man -...
Last post by Chimpbot
Today 08:30 AM
2 Replies, 260 Views
Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 03-13-2018, 03:54 PM   #281
SpectralThundr
Evil Dead
 
SpectralThundr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Boston/Ontario
Posts: 7,498
You say that as though you have something to fear from law abiding gun owners. Wonder why that is?
SpectralThundr is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-13-2018, 04:16 PM   #282
Whimbrel
Subhuman
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 2,849
Quote:
Originally Posted by vallor View Post
Also, awesome speech. It triggered a huge number of progressives.
Vallor, I finally got around to watching this. I will reiterate that I have a very hard time believing people when they talk about governments disarming their citizens as some kind of reason to protect gun ownership. Maybe people have been saying this for so long that it no longer sounds crazy to those saying it, but it sounds like sheer lunacy to me. I'm not trying to say that you or this guy in the video are intentionally being dishonest, just that this argument sounds like something a crazy person would state as the reason they can only eat with the handle of their silverware or something. We don't need to go around again about Venezuela, I know that everything about Venezuela is exactly like everything in the US, so anything that happened there has a 100% chance of happening here any moment now so we better start getting ready. If that sounded crazy, then you are getting a glimpse at what the disarming citizens argument looks like to me. If people on the right said we need our guns because the sky is falling and we want to use our bullets to shoot it back up, that would seem as credible as the idea that the government would go door to door and violently disarm people in some coast to coast wild west shootout. Fred, George, and Damon are going up against the police, Swat, the Green Berets, and an aircraft carrier down on Elm Street. Bring the extra ammo!!!!!

On the other hand, this video once again raises the point that nothing good comes from comparing people to Nazis. It does poison the debate.

Planned parenthood? Wow. I wouldn't have thought that was relevant, but here it is again.

I'll just say this again here though. He made some good points, and I have nothing against opening the books and putting everything on the table here. I we really want to see what is causing these things, what is allowing them, why mass shootings are taking place and an honest discussion really does involve broadening this out to look at welfare, family values, gun fee zones, etc. Then great. But let's also put the honesty on the table too. If this were any other cause of death, the actual cause of death would also be on the table, and he left it off. Sure, there may be more to it than guns. But the guns are also part of it, and no, anybody who tries to argue their way into leaving that out of an "honest" discussion is not being honest.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Terran View Post
What I think is immaterial
Whimbrel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-13-2018, 04:16 PM   #283
Terran
Evil Dead
 
Terran's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 13,012
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whimbrel View Post
The right to bear arms is not balanced by any right that provides protection against those who exercise the right to bear arms.
WTF are you flapping your gums about? The right to bear arms is balanced by others' right to bear arms, moron. SCOTUS has already ruled the state itself has NO OBLIGATION to protect you. YOU have the obligation to protect yourself. Avail yourself of that opportunity or not, but don't bitch about it if you choose to disarm yourself unilaterally.

The stupid is strong with progressives. Seriously strong.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eats View Post
"...boys lining up outside a room to take a turn gang raping a woman?...I went to frat parties where shit like this was going down
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eats View Post
I certainly went to frat parties where girls were getting roofied
Terran is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-13-2018, 07:13 PM   #284
VenomUSMC
Evil Dead
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 8,689
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whimbrel View Post
Vallor, I finally got around to watching this. I will reiterate that I have a very hard time believing people when they talk about governments disarming their citizens as some kind of reason to protect gun ownership. Maybe people have been saying this for so long that it no longer sounds crazy to those saying it, but it sounds like sheer lunacy to me. I'm not trying to say that you or this guy in the video are intentionally being dishonest, just that this argument sounds like something a crazy person would state as the reason they can only eat with the handle of their silverware or something.
History has objectively shown governments to revoke civilian ownership of firearms, afterwards committing atrocities against those same civilians. Is it truly impossible to think it could happen here?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whimbrel View Post
We don't need to go around again about Venezuela, I know that everything about Venezuela is exactly like everything in the US, so anything that happened there has a 100% chance of happening here any moment now so we better start getting ready. If that sounded crazy, then you are getting a glimpse at what the disarming citizens argument looks like to me. If people on the right said we need our guns because the sky is falling and we want to use our bullets to shoot it back up, that would seem as credible as the idea that the government would go door to door and violently disarm people in some coast to coast wild west shootout.
People aren't arguing that Venezuela is exactly like the US. What people generally argue is that as the US grows more socialist in nature, with magical wealth redistribution that you're a fan of, that it is more likely to experience such issues. Meanwhile we're told by many anti-gunners that we don't need guns, but we're all at risk of being gunned down -- meaning you need some sort of self-defense.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whimbrel View Post
Fred, George, and Damon are going up against the police, Swat, the Green Berets, and an aircraft carrier down on Elm Street. Bring the extra ammo!!!!!
How long have we been in Afghanistan? We have Navy SEALs, Green Berets, other parts of SOCOM/JSOC, and the conventional forces. We have nuclear powered aircraft carriers, 5th generation stealth fighters, drones, and nuclear weapons. Yet the Taliban remains. Considering how much more complicated it'd be if the US military were operating in the US. There are the laws on the books, not to mention what happens when a military member, neighbor, or family member loses a loved one/friend in a military strike. In some neighbors in the US, the police are already despised; imagine if they were dropping 500lb bombs on homes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whimbrel View Post
Planned parenthood? Wow. I wouldn't have thought that was relevant, but here it is again.
Why wouldn't you think this was relevant? Planned Parenthood has reportedly performed over 320,000 abortions in a single year. You know, that honest debate about a cause of death.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whimbrel View Post
I'll just say this again here though. He made some good points, and I have nothing against opening the books and putting everything on the table here. I we really want to see what is causing these things, what is allowing them, why mass shootings are taking place and an honest discussion really does involve broadening this out to look at welfare, family values, gun fee zones, etc. Then great. But let's also put the honesty on the table too. If this were any other cause of death, the actual cause of death would also be on the table, and he left it off. Sure, there may be more to it than guns. But the guns are also part of it, and no, anybody who tries to argue their way into leaving that out of an "honest" discussion is not being honest.
Your complaint simply isn't true. Cars kill more people than guns. Alcohol, per the CDC, is involved in the death of 88,000 Americans per year. Where are your calls to ban private ownership or greatly restrict either? Nobody blames the car when someone purposely drives it into a crowd. Should we have blamed the guns for the terrorist attacks in Paris? So, no, any other cause of death doesn't mean the inanimate object used by a murderer to commit murder is on the table.

Not to mention:

Yes, limbs were said to have killed more people than all types of rifles.

Yet this honest debate at the national stage seems to focus on banning a certain type of semi-automatic rifle for largely cosmetic reasons.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anenome View Post
Many cultures of the world marry girls off after their first menses, around 13 years old. I can't say that's inherently immoral, no.
VenomUSMC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-13-2018, 11:45 PM   #285
vallor
Michael Bay Fanboi
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: San Diego, California
Posts: 7,250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whimbrel View Post
Vallor, I finally got around to watching this. I will reiterate that I have a very hard time believing people when they talk about governments disarming their citizens as some kind of reason to protect gun ownership.
A disarmed populace is a populace that is easily controlled. Even forgetting Venezuela look at how cowed populations are in the EU. The governments respect their citizens even less their than they do here. For example look how the UK government is perverting the will of the people on Brexit.

I don't think it would lead to an armed rebellion however I have to wonder if the political class would be so brazen if they knew mass armed resistance was a possibility.

Quote:
If people on the right said we need our guns because the sky is falling and we want to use our bullets to shoot it back up, that would seem as credible as the idea that the government would go door to door and violently disarm people in some coast to coast wild west shootout.
The progressives sound equally crazy when they casually dismiss overwhelming and repeated historical precedent showing disarming a population as one of the first steps leading to a vulnerable population ripe for exploitation and worse. Especially when said historical precedent has resulted directly in tens of millions of deaths.

Any scientist will tell you past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior but, for some reason, this true-ism doesn't apply because??
vallor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2018, 10:53 AM   #286
Whimbrel
Subhuman
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 2,849
Quote:
Originally Posted by vallor View Post

Any scientist will tell you past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior but, for some reason, this true-ism doesn't apply because??
Right. It is totally true. Either, anything that has happened at any time at any place is equally likely to happen at any other time and any other place, which makes it true that the past is a predictor of the future, or there are specific factors involved in a previous behavior which directly affect the probability of that behavior recurring in the future depending on whether those factors are present or absent, again, making the truism true. My objection is this recitation of "it happened before someplace, so we better get ready" as though understanding which factors are involved is completely irrelevant. The primary issues are the factors related to x happening, not that x happened.


I personally don't think any large scale violent disarming is likely in the USA because the people in power have achieved the best status quo on the planet to maintain their power and increase their wealth with the populace as it is right now. The more pie in the sky issues it can get people to squabble about the more they can milk the system, but actually fighting to the death in armed conflict over any issue would be disruptive to the profit flow.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Terran View Post
What I think is immaterial
Whimbrel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2018, 11:20 AM   #287
vallor
Michael Bay Fanboi
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: San Diego, California
Posts: 7,250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whimbrel View Post
My objection is this recitation of "it happened before someplace, so we better get ready" as though understanding which factors are involved is completely irrelevant. The primary issues are the factors related to x happening, not that x happened.
In the US people sell a device that has a little pointy nubbin on the end that you can use to shatter your car window in the event you end up ditching your vehicle in a body of water and need to get out. This apparently happens about 1,200 times a year.

Such an insignificant amount compared to the overall motor vehicle death rate yet there is a market for those things.

In the meantime over the last century we have 10s (hundreds!) of millions of people who have been killed by their government after having been disarmed so they could not fight back.

Everywhere from the Soviet Union to Cuba to Venezuela to the Ukraine (who actually disarmed in large part thanks to the US promising to provide them all the security they would need then reneging under Obama after Russian aggression). The list goes on and on.

"Disarm! We will take care of you!" says the state.
"OK!" says the population.
Lots of additional corpses of the population pile up because law enforcement either isn't given the tools, training, or the proper motivation to keep up with the crime.

The past is the best predictor of future behavior. The past behavior of the world says a populace disarmed is just waiting to get bent over.

Quote:
I personally don't think any large scale violent disarming is likely in the USA because the people in power have achieved the best status quo on the planet to maintain their power and increase their wealth with the populace as it is right now.
You won't find any disagreement there. Politics is a dirty BUSINESS which only seems to attract slimballs. I wish I could get rid of 90% of them and replace them with true citizen statesman. Considering your feelings on the matter I'm not sure why you are so gung-ho on getting rid of private ownership of guns and putting ALL the guns in ONLY the hands of the agents of the state.

The State you have little to no faith has your best interest, much safety or long term health at heart in the slightest.
vallor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2018, 01:10 PM   #288
SpectralThundr
Evil Dead
 
SpectralThundr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Boston/Ontario
Posts: 7,498
Quote:
Originally Posted by vallor View Post
In the US people sell a device that has a little pointy nubbin on the end that you can use to shatter your car window in the event you end up ditching your vehicle in a body of water and need to get out. This apparently happens about 1,200 times a year.

Such an insignificant amount compared to the overall motor vehicle death rate yet there is a market for those things.

In the meantime over the last century we have 10s (hundreds!) of millions of people who have been killed by their government after having been disarmed so they could not fight back.

Everywhere from the Soviet Union to Cuba to Venezuela to the Ukraine (who actually disarmed in large part thanks to the US promising to provide them all the security they would need then reneging under Obama after Russian aggression). The list goes on and on.

"Disarm! We will take care of you!" says the state.
"OK!" says the population.
Lots of additional corpses of the population pile up because law enforcement either isn't given the tools, training, or the proper motivation to keep up with the crime.

The past is the best predictor of future behavior. The past behavior of the world says a populace disarmed is just waiting to get bent over.



You won't find any disagreement there. Politics is a dirty BUSINESS which only seems to attract slimballs. I wish I could get rid of 90% of them and replace them with true citizen statesman. Considering your feelings on the matter I'm not sure why you are so gung-ho on getting rid of private ownership of guns and putting ALL the guns in ONLY the hands of the agents of the state.

The State you have little to no faith has your best interest, much safety or long term health at heart in the slightest.
If he has so little faith in the state, he wouldn't be a progressive voting for growing government. If he were against Illegal Immigration, and in turn illegals voting in US elections, he wouldn't be voting for progressives. Starting to see the trend? Whimbrel is quite simply full of shit.
SpectralThundr is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-2018, 02:21 PM   #289
Whimbrel
Subhuman
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 2,849
Quote:
Originally Posted by vallor View Post

The progressives sound equally crazy when they casually dismiss overwhelming and repeated historical precedent showing disarming a population as one of the first steps leading to a vulnerable population ripe for exploitation and worse. Especially when said historical precedent has resulted directly in tens of millions of deaths.
I'd like to revisit this one more time.

Let's assume that there is a historical precedent for a disarmed population being brutally exploited and murdered by its own government. Sure. I don't know what you mean about overwhelming, but sure. Let' say the precedent exists. It has happened x number of times in y number of places.

Now let's say there is also a historical precedent for a population being disarmed by its government and living happily ever after with the added benefit of fewer victims of gun violence and the government having no desire whatsoever to do anything to its population except help the rich profit from the masses as efficiently as possible. Well, has that ever happened? How many times and in how many places? Was it overwhelming?

Now, the point I have tried to make repeatedly. How can you possibly tell which precedent is applicable to the situation in the USA? Option A: It is impossible because anything that has ever happened anywhere at any time is equally likely to happen, or more realistically, it has a 100% chance of happening in the USA and we need to be prepared for it. Not getting ready for it would be completely irrational. Orrrrrrrr.... Option B: The actual lesson of history is not that anything that has happened anywhere at any time is 100% likely to happen here and now, but that we need to understand and take account of the relevant historical factors for every precedent. This approach would indicate that it would actually be historically inaccurate to believe that the things that have happened elsewhere are likely to happen here specifically because the causative and contributing historical factors are absent! The idea of historical events as lessons or warnings absolute from the actual historical contexts in which they occurred is lunacy and folly. It would be like saying a math problem had the answer of 17, so all math problems have that answer regardless of the problem. I am sure you can recognize why that is a stupid approach to math, but I can't figure out why you can't see why thinking this way wouldn't also be a disgrace to the concept of history.

Clearly modern US is closer to the UK, Australia, Japan, Germany, Norway, Switzerland, and Singapore than to the countries and historical "overwhelming precedents" you seem to think are significant. However, my point is that if these things are contextually historically irrelevant, then they are not actually precedents for a modern US situation, let alone a legitimate basis for something somebody should be worried about as actually having any likelihood of actually happening.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Terran View Post
What I think is immaterial
Whimbrel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-2018, 03:05 PM   #290
SpectralThundr
Evil Dead
 
SpectralThundr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Boston/Ontario
Posts: 7,498
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whimbrel View Post
I'd like to revisit this one more time.

Let's assume that there is a historical precedent for a disarmed population being brutally exploited and murdered by its own government. Sure. I don't know what you mean about overwhelming, but sure. Let' say the precedent exists. It has happened x number of times in y number of places.

Now let's say there is also a historical precedent for a population being disarmed by its government and living happily ever after with the added benefit of fewer victims of gun violence and the government having no desire whatsoever to do anything to its population except help the rich profit from the masses as efficiently as possible. Well, has that ever happened? How many times and in how many places? Was it overwhelming?

Now, the point I have tried to make repeatedly. How can you possibly tell which precedent is applicable to the situation in the USA? Option A: It is impossible because anything that has ever happened anywhere at any time is equally likely to happen, or more realistically, it has a 100% chance of happening in the USA and we need to be prepared for it. Not getting ready for it would be completely irrational. Orrrrrrrr.... Option B: The actual lesson of history is not that anything that has happened anywhere at any time is 100% likely to happen here and now, but that we need to understand and take account of the relevant historical factors for every precedent. This approach would indicate that it would actually be historically inaccurate to believe that the things that have happened elsewhere are likely to happen here specifically because the causative and contributing historical factors are absent! The idea of historical events as lessons or warnings absolute from the actual historical contexts in which they occurred is lunacy and folly. It would be like saying a math problem had the answer of 17, so all math problems have that answer regardless of the problem. I am sure you can recognize why that is a stupid approach to math, but I can't figure out why you can't see why thinking this way wouldn't also be a disgrace to the concept of history.

Clearly modern US is closer to the UK, Australia, Japan, Germany, Norway, Switzerland, and Singapore than to the countries and historical "overwhelming precedents" you seem to think are significant. However, my point is that if these things are contextually historically irrelevant, then they are not actually precedents for a modern US situation, let alone a legitimate basis for something somebody should be worried about as actually having any likelihood of actually happening.
Again why does the left want to change America to be more like socialists shit holes? You're not getting our guns, get over it.
SpectralThundr is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-2018, 05:00 PM   #291
Terran
Evil Dead
 
Terran's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 13,012
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whimbrel View Post
I'd like to revisit this one more time.
Said every progressive ever, until they got their way.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eats View Post
"...boys lining up outside a room to take a turn gang raping a woman?...I went to frat parties where shit like this was going down
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eats View Post
I certainly went to frat parties where girls were getting roofied
Terran is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-2018, 05:37 PM   #292
VenomUSMC
Evil Dead
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 8,689
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whimbrel View Post
Now, the point I have tried to make repeatedly. How can you possibly tell which precedent is applicable to the situation in the USA?
If you cannot tell the future, which we cannot, then it seems to me that there is more harm by removing private ownership of firearms that allowing that to remain. Look at the 1990s compared to now; an increase in private firearm ownership has occurred at the same time as there being fewer firearm victims. So, while retaining firearm ownership and increasing the law abiding citizen's ability to travel while armed, firearm crime has trended downward. I don't believe that an increase in firearm ownership is the single source for this change, but it's not objectively true that an increase in the number of privately owned firearms does not increase firearm related crimes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whimbrel View Post
Option A: It is impossible because anything that has ever happened anywhere at any time is equally likely to happen, or more realistically, it has a 100% chance of happening in the USA and we need to be prepared for it. Not getting ready for it would be completely irrational.
Well, no. While it's not impossible for things that have happened in other countries to happen here, that doesn't mean there is a 100% chance things will happen. The vast majority of 2A advocates are not arguing that there is a 100% chance this will happen. However, as the government, the federal government in particular, governs more and more of our lives, it seems to increase the chances of such a thing happening somewhere down the road.

I have a fire extinguisher and fire alarms besides there not being a 100% chance a fire is going to breakout. Does that mean I'm paranoid?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whimbrel View Post
Orrrrrrrr.... Option B: The actual lesson of history is not that anything that has happened anywhere at any time is 100% likely to happen here and now, but that we need to understand and take account of the relevant historical factors for every precedent. This approach would indicate that it would actually be historically inaccurate to believe that the things that have happened elsewhere are likely to happen here specifically because the causative and contributing historical factors are absent! The idea of historical events as lessons or warnings absolute from the actual historical contexts in which they occurred is lunacy and folly. It would be like saying a math problem had the answer of 17, so all math problems have that answer regardless of the problem. I am sure you can recognize why that is a stupid approach to math, but I can't figure out why you can't see why thinking this way wouldn't also be a disgrace to the concept of history.
It's not lunacy or folly to believe such a thing could happen here, as I don't believe anyone has said it's a 100% chance that it would occur.

At what point would you consider the U.S. government to tyrannical?

Now, conversely, which societies have obtained utopia? I assume you'll agree none have, and that people do need to be able to protect themselves. That's part of the reason I have an AR with a 33 round magazine nearby in the unlikely case that someone decides to break-in while I'm home.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whimbrel View Post
Clearly modern US is closer to the UK, Australia, Japan, Germany, Norway, Switzerland, and Singapore than to the countries and historical "overwhelming precedents" you seem to think are significant. However, my point is that if these things are contextually historically irrelevant, then they are not actually precedents for a modern US situation, let alone a legitimate basis for something somebody should be worried about as actually having any likelihood of actually happening.
Why shouldn't a person be worried about the likelihood of such a thing occurring here? Societies are extremely fragile, especially the way the West largely operates today. Working to prepare for potential chaos is not in anyway negative, as long as you're not hurting someone in doing so.

Particularly over the last few years, has there not been a movement claiming that, generally speaking, the government was sending its agents out to murder people in the street for merely having the wrong skin color? If someone reads/watches the MSM, much of what is reported seems to imply that POTUS is a Russian puppet. How many people are at a loss over the idea of Russian meddling, as if that were new? We have articles in major news agencies that amount to promoting a coup; NYT: The 25th Amendment Solution for Removing Trump; Wapo: Impeachment probably won't save us from Trump. But the 25th Amendment might.

Meanwhile, there is little worry about foreign meddling when it's done under the "right" politics: Undocumented immigrant appointed to state post in California
Quote:
Lizbeth Mateo, a 33-year-old attorney and immigrant rights activist, will serve on the California Student Opportunity and Access Program Project Grant Advisory Committee. The committee advises the California Student Aid Commission on efforts to increase college access for California students from low-income or underserved communities.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anenome View Post
Many cultures of the world marry girls off after their first menses, around 13 years old. I can't say that's inherently immoral, no.
VenomUSMC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-2018, 06:23 PM   #293
vallor
Michael Bay Fanboi
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: San Diego, California
Posts: 7,250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whimbrel View Post
I'd like to revisit this one more time.

Let's assume that there is a historical precedent for a disarmed population being brutally exploited and murdered by its own government.
I have a better idea. Let's not assume when we have a gross and tragically embarrassing wealth of knowledge which speaks to exactly this fact. We can either open a newspaper from somewhere that isn't the modern western world for example say Iran or Vietnam or a history book. Either will give the info.

But gimme a second. Let me think. Where has the Government eroded firearm rights recently and then used force to cow their population into compliance.

Let me knock on the ol' noggin...

Thinking...

How about:
1) The entire EU.

Yep. By the end of 2018 any country, including the previously very savvy Swiss (who used to mandate that every male have at least one firearm in their home) who are part of the Schengen area must comply with the EU Firearms Directive. This is lovingly known as the "EU Gun Ban".

Originally countries were able to work within a framework however amendment 853 last year forces full compliance.

Or from the 1990s. A personal journey near and dear to my heart from a slightly weathered history book as the USSR was collapsing.

One particularly fine and heroic Socialist, Slobodan Milosevic, leader of the Yugoslav Socialist Party just wanted to make a few tweaks to the Yugoslav Constitution aimed at keeping those darned Albanians under control which included (wait for it...) knuckling down on their ability to keep their weapons.

See these pesky Albanians tended toward insubordination and had been going at it with the Russians previously and had long running feuds with Muslims (you might have heard about a particular massacres previously done by Serbians and so on). These folks have been around forever (like, really, forever) and no one had managed to slap them down just yet but Slobo was the man for the job.

Ultimately we know how this turned the region into a bloodbath - I maybe more than most others on this board.

Of course I'm not sure anyone is really interested on the national scale but let's check in with Crimea and the Ukraine and see how well they fared under disarmament. Back in 1991 Ukraine had the second largest stockpile of Nukes in the failing USSR.

But they decided to play nice back in the mid-90s and, with a sigh of relief considering what was going on just to the South of them, signed a treaty in Budapest to give them up. Oops. Now Putin, the man everyone loves to hate gobbled up Crimea and is encroaching on Ukraine.

Not only did Putin break the pledge of the Budapest Memorandum but Obama showed Putin his belly by not IMMEDIATELY enforcing the stipulations of the treaty. Now TRUMP isn't doing a good gatdamn thing about it either!

Quote:
Let' say the precedent exists.
That's mighty generous you. I think it's safe to say precedent exists.

Breeders of plants and animals do the same thing. What do you do when you have something dangerous you need to control? Nullify the weapons!

Grab the bull by the horns, take the reins, milk the venom from the snake, breed roses without the thorns, and so on.

In the case of our Constitution people felt so strongly about some things they pulled them out A DECADE after the Revolution, into The Bill of Rights, which the Federalist were like "hell no, that's so dumb. Of course people have freedom of religion. We didn't say anything about religion in the Constitution so the Federal Government should have nothing to do with Religion. That should be totally unquestioned."

But Madison was like. "Dudes, remember 50% of the people are dumber than average. If you don't want me to actually put this shit in the Constitution at least let me tack it on to the end or something."

Quote:
Now let's say there is also a historical precedent for a population being disarmed by its government and living happily ever after with the added benefit of fewer victims of gun violence and the government having no desire whatsoever to do anything to its population except help the rich profit from the masses as efficiently as possible. Well, has that ever happened? How many times and in how many places? Was it overwhelming?
You sound like the guy trying to sell me a $70,000 hybrid car by telling me how much I'll save on gas cause I'll save $5 on each fill up over the $30,000 car.

Let's take the flat out bullshit numbers the media is pushing about (rounded up) 40,000 gun deaths in the US every year AND we say each of those are malicious deaths (read: MURDERS; actual gun VIOLENCE).

Now, let's do perfect world. We take ALL the guns and we get them all. We stop ALL imports of guns. Nothing gets in and firearm deaths drop to ZERO. Oh, and we hope all this time the Government doesn't abuse their new found power which you are ignoring the effects of in the EU and Australia. Boiling pot, frog, etc.

Now pay attention because this is the important part:

It would still take centuries before we scratched the surface of the amount of death, killing, and bloodshed that has been done by Governments to their own to populations that have been first defanged in the 20th Century ALONE.

This doesn't even include the damage that can happen for outside factors. And of course we won't get perfect world.

So would I rather risk the lives of the actual REAL numbers - kindly provided multiple times by Venom and others - who die to malicious (and yes evil and capricious) gun violence every year to a gun confiscation and being at the mercy of a tempermental Government? Yes, because at the end of the day MATH is HARD and sometimes cruel and the RoI for a gun confiscation isn't there assuming we last even 1,000 years.

But why am I lecturing a socialist about the greater good?

And before you come go grab people's guns I invite you to go somewhere like Israel (unless you are a pussy BDS, in which case I guess you can hit a refugee camp in Turkey) and look into the eyes of someone who has been a victim of a hostile government force and tell them you think it's best if the only people who have guns are the Government.

Now, can we get back to talking about a real solution(s) or is this going to be mental masterbation about seizing guns?

EDIT: Added clarity to the sentences
(additions in italics):
1) (read: MURDERS; actual gun VIOLENCE).
2) gun violence every year to a gun confiscation and being at the mercy of a tempermental Government?

Last edited by vallor; 03-15-2018 at 07:00 PM..
vallor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-2018, 11:40 PM   #294
vallor
Michael Bay Fanboi
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: San Diego, California
Posts: 7,250
In the other thread, Liberal loonies or whatever, I referenced President Obama's speech from his 2009 Inauguration. To me it struck a perfect note and it may well be one of the greatest speeches I've ever had the pleasure of listening to in real-time.

When I went back and listened to it again for my post in the other thread I heard this part which I think is more valuable for this thread.

Quote:
Originally Posted by President Obama's First Inauguration Speech
Forty-four Americans have now taken the presidential oath. The words have been spoken during rising tides of prosperity and the still waters of peace.

Yet, every so often, the oath is taken amidst gathering clouds and raging storms. At these moments, America has carried on not simply because of the skill or vision of those in high office, but because we, the people, have remained faithful to the ideals of our forebears and true to our founding documents.

So it has been; so it must be with this generation of Americans.
Since 2009 apparently things have changed enough that when the going gets tough the Left thinks the solution is to sully the spirit, if not the letter, of the documents which President Obama believed were the rudder which had and would see America through it's troubled times.
vallor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-16-2018, 11:51 AM   #295
Whimbrel
Subhuman
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 2,849
Quote:
Originally Posted by vallor View Post
Now pay attention because this is the important part:

It would still take centuries before we scratched the surface of the amount of death, killing, and bloodshed that has been done by Governments to their own to populations that have been first defanged in the 20th Century ALONE.

This doesn't even include the damage that can happen for outside factors. And of course we won't get perfect world.

So would I rather risk the lives of the actual REAL numbers - kindly provided multiple times by Venom and others - who die to malicious (and yes evil and capricious) gun violence every year to a gun confiscation and being at the mercy of a tempermental Government? Yes, because at the end of the day MATH is HARD and sometimes cruel and the RoI for a gun confiscation isn't there assuming we last even 1,000 years.

But why am I lecturing a socialist about the greater good?

And before you come go grab people's guns I invite you to go somewhere like Israel...
I have been to Israel, multiple times, and I directly observed the prevalence of guns there. Now, I'm not going to put any words in your mouth to argue fro or against whatever point you were trying to make about Israel, but I really did not care for the way things were there. I definitely would not want that to become the model for how our society approaches being armed.


I don't really understand the point you are making about the EU and Australia. Are you saying it would take centuries to reach a clear understanding of the historically relevant factors involved in the deaths in the 20th century? You don't need to elaborate, but I was using those countries as examples of successful gun control that did not lead to governmental induced genocide, but then you seem to be using them as counterexamples of successful gun control. I'm not aware of any government atrocities based on disarming the population in any of those countries/ regions I listed, and your earlier posts had indicated that these disarmed populace governments run amok scenarios were of direct relevance and concern, but I don't see how Australia qualifies.

Aside from that, as far as engaging in a thought experiment goes, that was a very clear refusal, so I will just move on with the understanding that we disagree about what the determines the relevance of historical precedents.

I don't quite get the MATH IS HARD part either. You aren't risking the lives of people killed by gun violence, since their deaths are a certainty. The risk is holding a position based on a remote possibility that never becomes relevant. But, this directly goes towards one of my earliest points in this thread, which is that we all do this and I don't see any easy answer. Subjectively weighing the appropriate response to a fear of a remote possibility is the opposite of an exact science, and when we do it intuitively, we don't reach the mathematically correct conclusions.

I don't quite see that I am any more of a socialist than any American who uses National Parks, but okee dokee. I guess it was label dropping time.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Terran View Post
What I think is immaterial

Last edited by Whimbrel; 03-16-2018 at 01:43 PM..
Whimbrel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-16-2018, 11:56 AM   #296
Whimbrel
Subhuman
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 2,849
Quote:
Originally Posted by vallor View Post
Since 2009 apparently things have changed enough that when the going gets tough the Left thinks the solution is to sully the spirit, if not the letter, of the documents which President Obama believed were the rudder which had and would see America through it's troubled times.
Does this have something to do with my questioning the rationality of applying irrelevant historical precedents as a justification for grossly reinterpreting the 2nd amendment away from the founders intents?

If not, I really don't see this as a left versus right issue in terms of sullying the spirit of he constitution, cf Judge Garland?

If so, isn't the spirit of the constitution to remain vigilant, ask questions, balance the security of a free state against the tyranny of a violent, armed populace? Or barring that, to at least discuss it freely?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Terran View Post
What I think is immaterial
Whimbrel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-16-2018, 12:04 PM   #297
SpectralThundr
Evil Dead
 
SpectralThundr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Boston/Ontario
Posts: 7,498
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whimbrel View Post
Does this have something to do with my questioning the rationality of applying irrelevant historical precedents as a justification for grossly reinterpreting the 2nd amendment away from the founders intents?

If not, I really don't see this as a left versus right issue in terms of sullying the spirit of he constitution, cf Judge Garland?

If so, isn't the spirit of the constitution to remain vigilant, ask questions, balance the security of a free state against the tyranny of a violent, armed populace? Or barring that, to at least discuss it freely?
A well armed populace is tyranny in your eyes? Not at all surprising. So when did you become a cultural marxists? Was it in college or prior to that?
SpectralThundr is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-16-2018, 12:11 PM   #298
Whimbrel
Subhuman
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 2,849
Quote:
Originally Posted by VenomUSMC View Post
If you cannot tell the future, which we cannot, then it seems to me that there is more harm by removing private ownership of firearms that allowing that to remain.
Well stated. As was the rest of your post. My general point was not to assert that I have clairvoyant powers that others do not possess, but to raise the issue of the degree of relevance of specific historical events to a current fear/ preparation level for some scenario in our country. Without putting words in your mouth, you seem to have articulated reasons, as has Vallor, for seeing things as more or less risky based on subjective judgments, and I pretty much agree that this is what we are dealing with even though I disagree in the specific assessment of risk versus the current costs.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Terran View Post
What I think is immaterial
Whimbrel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-16-2018, 01:43 PM   #299
SpectralThundr
Evil Dead
 
SpectralThundr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Boston/Ontario
Posts: 7,498
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whimbrel View Post
Well stated. As was the rest of your post. My general point was not to assert that I have clairvoyant powers that others do not possess, but to raise the issue of the degree of relevance of specific historical events to a current fear/ preparation level for some scenario in our country. Without putting words in your mouth, you seem to have articulated reasons, as has Vallor, for seeing things as more or less risky based on subjective judgments, and I pretty much agree that this is what we are dealing with even though I disagree in the specific assessment of risk versus the current costs.
Considering you made the claim above that an armed populace equates to tyranny it's no shock you disagree. Unless that was a hell of a Freudian slip typo on your part.

I think the bottom line is types like yourself simply fail to understand why the 2nd amendment was worded the way it was. As people who think like you also tend to hand wave away all the genocidal things governments have done once disarming the populace, and you're too ignorant in believing it can't happen anywhere. Especially given that most of us have a clue as to what the globalists aim is while those on the left like yourself pretend their goals don't exists.
SpectralThundr is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-16-2018, 05:21 PM   #300
vallor
Michael Bay Fanboi
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: San Diego, California
Posts: 7,250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whimbrel View Post
I don't really understand the point you are making about the EU
You were asking for recent examples of populations being disarmed and then abused by their governments. The EU is such a population. Not all weapons or guns were illegal in the EU until the biggie in 2015 when they introduced the Firearms Directive or the "EU Gun Ban" which outlawed a whole bunch of stuff. Now with amendment 853 ALL countries that are part of the zone have no lattitude in the framework of the Directive. Even countries with "responsible" reputations around gun ownership like Switzerland must comply despite a long tradition of ownership and citizen military.

Now a women can be prosecuted for using something as simple as pepper spray to fend off a sexual assault (something much more common now thanks to enforced "cultural enrichment" from Africa and the Middle East).

Quote:
You don't need to elaborate
Apparently I do because you don't see the insidiousness of the creeping tyranny of their government. Pot->boiling frog.

British politicians are doing everything they can to pervert the people's vote on Brexit. Is this a small thing when what should be a democracy on a simple up/down vote is nullified?

What is the people's recourse? Nothing really. They can just complain really loudly or riot and if there are riots the government has the means to put the people in their place. And like in Iran and other places where only the government has the force, they will win.

Remember the Arab Spring? It didn't work out mostly because the governments put that shit down really fast. Except in Syria where people, who may or may not have been related to terrorism - or the CIA if you are inclined to that mindset - went (or had) a bunch of guns and now we have civil war.

I guess it's better that a few thousand arabs died or were swept away to rot in some stinky prison for rioting in the cause of freedom than the Syria civil war. Maybe your way IS the better way because fewer people DID actually die in those countries. I am not willing to make that trade-off.

Quote:
I was using those countries as examples of successful gun control that did not lead to governmental induced genocide, but then you seem to be using them as counterexamples of successful gun control.
That's because you think their gun control, or weapon control, is working and I disagree.

The population of these countries is more vulnerable and all the while the government slowly but surely eroding more and more of their civil liberties. Look at speech laws and how crime, particularly property and capital crimes such as sexual assaults, have skyrocketed over Europe and instead of taking measures to allow people to better protect themselves they have further restricted the ability for people to protect themselves.

In contrast, as the ownership of firearms in the US has increased instances of violent capital crime has actually decreased. Granted the US has also not taken in several million refugees from an incompatible culture in the last 4 years or so there is that variable.

Even the agents of the Government find themselves unable to sometimes properly protect themselves.

The government has shown, in the US most recently as Parkland, that they are not adequate stewards of our personal safety and the Supreme Court has affirmed Law Enforcement has no duty to "Protect".

We have populations at the mercy of everyone and everything that chooses to break the fragile social contract. A contract, I might add, most governments of the EU are already stretching to the breaking point if you are paying attention to the elections. There is no wonder they want the Firearms Directive to extend to the entire Schengen zone; the natives are getting restless.

Quote:
I don't quite get the MATH IS HARD part either. You aren't risking the lives of people killed by gun violence, since their deaths are a certainty. The risk is holding a position based on a remote possibility that never becomes relevant.
I'm saying that you are bad at math and risk analysis. People will die to violence and this is tragic no matter what the figure is or what the source.

For some reason you trust the government to keep you safe and never, ever abuse that trust. I don't know why when they've proven time and time again they can't be trusted yet contrary to all the evidence you trust them.

Armed Americans are the safety valve and it is a RIGHT guaranteed in the documents which were not just haphazardly put together by some heroin addicted writer.

Are those outdated concepts now? They could NEVER have imagined airplanes and migration and mixed cultures like we have now. A time when black people, white people, asians, LGBT mixed, married and had kids.

I mean would the 5th and 6th amendments be the same with all that fair jury of your peers and facing your accuser stuff if they knew they were going to be gay, black, or whatever mixed breed? Those weren't PEERS!

Does the fact they couldn't envision an cell phone where you could call someone, even a terrorist on the other side of the world and conspire in real time mean they were wrong about free speech? Does that make things like Stingray and warrantless wiretapping OK?

Does the fact that they didn't have advanced mathematical encryption make it OK to require backdoors to be added to iPhones so the government can search your devices whenever they want and violate the 4th amendment? I mean no one ever imagined a day when you could actually permanently hide information in plain sight like that.

The 2nd amendment and armed Americans make sure that, at least in our country, we'll not see the scale of death and destruction we have seen visited upon other populations who did not have, or who gave up that safety valve. And, as with ALL FREEDOMS that comes with a sometimes terrible cost.

You think we have advanced as a civilization beyond this and our government or the government of any western country would never do that but you ignore the day to day tyranny we accept as part and parcel already.

Right now we are in a social tinderbox politically world-wide. The EU is on edge with populist movements gaining ground in almost all areas. The UK is pushing it's people hard on the Brexit issue. America is more divided than maybe it has ever been with a President who honestly needs to just stop talking.

The last thing we need to do is go breaking something that doesn't need fixing.

EDIT: Forgot to close a quote.

Last edited by vallor; 03-16-2018 at 05:40 PM..
vallor is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:28 PM.