FA+
Shop
the arguments I get into on the net.
12 years ago
General
This segment is called, "arguments I get into with random gun control nuts on the internet. "
I always seem to be getting into an argument day in, and day out. Yet, nobody ever gets to see how much I school people who are not used to somebody who actually researches things, or uses logic to come to a conclusion. I have to admit, most pro-gun arguments are pretty much bumper sticker platitudes. The very Liberal anti-gun people tend to have this delusion of intellectual superiority, and will use hexa-syllabic words to show off, then simply resort to ad hominem attacks. So, really, they are just not used to a guy like me. I can point out fallacies, and use that pesky logic to in the very least make them see the error in their arguments.
I will just use this account as a dumping ground for the more amusing confrontations I encounter. Occasionally I will also post my own bone headed responses. I have argued myself into a corner more than once. I am not above looking like a moron... who is?
Anyway, here is a wise guy that thought that he would throw out the bill of rights, as.. well, I will let you read for yourself.
Some guy who really hates guns named "Tom" said
"You are absolutely right. The 2nd Amendment does not confer the right of ownership. It conditions the right to keep and bear arms on the need for armed citizens who can be conscripted (on threat of imprisonment if they refuse) to put down invasions and insurrections.
What is a well-regulated Militia? Who regulates it? This is clearly answered in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 15 and 16, which states that Congress controls the Militia, and it organizes, arms, and disciplines (actual words of the Constitution) the Militia.
The word own or ownership is never mentioned, nor is individual self-defense or a private militia.
In short, the 2nd Amendment (which was made obsolete by the creation of standing army) is a kind of obligation (to fight when drafted) disguised as a right.
If gun ownership is not conferred by the Constitution, gun ownership is, like car ownership, a privilege, available to those who follow govt rules, not an unlimited right.
This distortion of the actual text of the Constitution (usually it is ignored) has resulted in a nation which has over 30,000 gun deaths a year, an average of 90% more gun murders than all the other advanced nations. It's time to tell those gun nuts waving the Constitution to read it.
You have the right to possess arms so you can be drafted to put down invasions and rebellions. There is no mention of taking up arms against a tyrannical government, and people like Jefferson who wanted to include such concepts were voted down in the Virginia Legislature and the Constitution mentions ONLY collective self-defense (in the absence of a standing security force) as the justification and purpose of the 2nd Amendment.
So we have the "right" to be drafted but not to own guns, since the Constitution states clearly that the Militia is armed by the government. Just like the National Guard or the police.
It's time to read the actual Constitution, not the fictional artifact invented by the gun lobby toprotect their right to make profits...and the more gun violence, the more profits."
I felt Tom kinda missed the point. He tries really hard to contort the simple idea of an amendment. As in.... you fucking amend something.. like the constitution. then he gets all emotional, and he kinda looses my attention there. Then he says things on the Bill of Rights are a privilege.. I really just had to say something. I know he won't get it.. or deny it because it does not support his absurd claim. I just hope anybody else who may have halfway believed him was given little bit of direction.
So, I said to him.
"Well, not really.
See, you have your sequencing wrong here. The Bill of rights was an amendment to the constitution. As in, they amended what was wrong. That is exactly why you see the right of ownership in the bill of rights, as it was not covered in the initial ratification of the Constitution. The Bill of Rights limits the power of government, and is means in how we amend the constitution. Clearly in 1791 they came to the conclusion that the right to bear arms was important enough to amend the constitution. So, they did. It's not a distortion by any means. If anything it shows you do not understand the reason for the Bill of Rights, or the additional 17 amendments that where ratified after the initial ratification of the Constitution. If you choose to distort the facts, and procedure of constitutional law by denying what the bill of rights was specifically intended to do simply to further your compunctions in gun ownership, than you are morally bankrupt.
You know, they had over 2 years to get the Bill of Rights correct. It's hard to believe that James Madison let a typo mistaking the "militia" for the "people" slide for 2 years. The wording is nearly identical to the State Constitutions at the time. Most notable the article from Massachusetts. " The people have a right to keep and bear arms for the common defence."
Or Vermont "That the people have the right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State"
But then we see in Maryland, they had a slightly different idea. "That a well-regulated militia is the proper and natural defence of a free government."
The lexicon used in the Second amendment (to the constitution) is nearly plagiarized from the states individual constitutions. So, it was not even a new idea. We simply see an amalgamation of the states declared rights at the time. That is why you see the words "militia" in the same amendment, while also describing the "people". If anything, they just annexed the two ideas sourced from state constitutions, to create a mecca-right. So, spare us the faux-history lesson. Some of us payed attention in High School civics class.
I will lend you credit that the Constitution, and the amendments to it where highly political at the time. The Constitution in it's initial implementation seems to have more of the Federalist's ideals. Whereas you see in the Bill of Rights, many of the ideals of the Anti-Federalist party found their way in. "
I really could have railed on him for so many things. But I have costumes to make, and only one lunch hour a day.. so, we will have to leave it at that.
If you like these sorts of things, please let me know. As without an audience, this feels like it could become lots of effort for no real reason.
I always seem to be getting into an argument day in, and day out. Yet, nobody ever gets to see how much I school people who are not used to somebody who actually researches things, or uses logic to come to a conclusion. I have to admit, most pro-gun arguments are pretty much bumper sticker platitudes. The very Liberal anti-gun people tend to have this delusion of intellectual superiority, and will use hexa-syllabic words to show off, then simply resort to ad hominem attacks. So, really, they are just not used to a guy like me. I can point out fallacies, and use that pesky logic to in the very least make them see the error in their arguments.
I will just use this account as a dumping ground for the more amusing confrontations I encounter. Occasionally I will also post my own bone headed responses. I have argued myself into a corner more than once. I am not above looking like a moron... who is?
Anyway, here is a wise guy that thought that he would throw out the bill of rights, as.. well, I will let you read for yourself.
Some guy who really hates guns named "Tom" said
"You are absolutely right. The 2nd Amendment does not confer the right of ownership. It conditions the right to keep and bear arms on the need for armed citizens who can be conscripted (on threat of imprisonment if they refuse) to put down invasions and insurrections.
What is a well-regulated Militia? Who regulates it? This is clearly answered in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 15 and 16, which states that Congress controls the Militia, and it organizes, arms, and disciplines (actual words of the Constitution) the Militia.
The word own or ownership is never mentioned, nor is individual self-defense or a private militia.
In short, the 2nd Amendment (which was made obsolete by the creation of standing army) is a kind of obligation (to fight when drafted) disguised as a right.
If gun ownership is not conferred by the Constitution, gun ownership is, like car ownership, a privilege, available to those who follow govt rules, not an unlimited right.
This distortion of the actual text of the Constitution (usually it is ignored) has resulted in a nation which has over 30,000 gun deaths a year, an average of 90% more gun murders than all the other advanced nations. It's time to tell those gun nuts waving the Constitution to read it.
You have the right to possess arms so you can be drafted to put down invasions and rebellions. There is no mention of taking up arms against a tyrannical government, and people like Jefferson who wanted to include such concepts were voted down in the Virginia Legislature and the Constitution mentions ONLY collective self-defense (in the absence of a standing security force) as the justification and purpose of the 2nd Amendment.
So we have the "right" to be drafted but not to own guns, since the Constitution states clearly that the Militia is armed by the government. Just like the National Guard or the police.
It's time to read the actual Constitution, not the fictional artifact invented by the gun lobby toprotect their right to make profits...and the more gun violence, the more profits."
I felt Tom kinda missed the point. He tries really hard to contort the simple idea of an amendment. As in.... you fucking amend something.. like the constitution. then he gets all emotional, and he kinda looses my attention there. Then he says things on the Bill of Rights are a privilege.. I really just had to say something. I know he won't get it.. or deny it because it does not support his absurd claim. I just hope anybody else who may have halfway believed him was given little bit of direction.
So, I said to him.
"Well, not really.
See, you have your sequencing wrong here. The Bill of rights was an amendment to the constitution. As in, they amended what was wrong. That is exactly why you see the right of ownership in the bill of rights, as it was not covered in the initial ratification of the Constitution. The Bill of Rights limits the power of government, and is means in how we amend the constitution. Clearly in 1791 they came to the conclusion that the right to bear arms was important enough to amend the constitution. So, they did. It's not a distortion by any means. If anything it shows you do not understand the reason for the Bill of Rights, or the additional 17 amendments that where ratified after the initial ratification of the Constitution. If you choose to distort the facts, and procedure of constitutional law by denying what the bill of rights was specifically intended to do simply to further your compunctions in gun ownership, than you are morally bankrupt.
You know, they had over 2 years to get the Bill of Rights correct. It's hard to believe that James Madison let a typo mistaking the "militia" for the "people" slide for 2 years. The wording is nearly identical to the State Constitutions at the time. Most notable the article from Massachusetts. " The people have a right to keep and bear arms for the common defence."
Or Vermont "That the people have the right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State"
But then we see in Maryland, they had a slightly different idea. "That a well-regulated militia is the proper and natural defence of a free government."
The lexicon used in the Second amendment (to the constitution) is nearly plagiarized from the states individual constitutions. So, it was not even a new idea. We simply see an amalgamation of the states declared rights at the time. That is why you see the words "militia" in the same amendment, while also describing the "people". If anything, they just annexed the two ideas sourced from state constitutions, to create a mecca-right. So, spare us the faux-history lesson. Some of us payed attention in High School civics class.
I will lend you credit that the Constitution, and the amendments to it where highly political at the time. The Constitution in it's initial implementation seems to have more of the Federalist's ideals. Whereas you see in the Bill of Rights, many of the ideals of the Anti-Federalist party found their way in. "
I really could have railed on him for so many things. But I have costumes to make, and only one lunch hour a day.. so, we will have to leave it at that.
If you like these sorts of things, please let me know. As without an audience, this feels like it could become lots of effort for no real reason.
And yeah while there's noise reduction, in unintended use/outside of a range, there's no goggles, or headphones. Lol. low noise ammo is fine i suppose, so are silencers on pistols, but they're still loud, and not as much fun.
As far as swords/melee goes - there's a lot more skill required in mastering the weapon. if you're retarded with one you can quite easily hurt yourself.
As far as expedient use goes, though, I'd much rather have a firearm. Odds of me coming out the victor are much better in such an instance.
If you're retarded enough to hurt yourself (or someone else!) with a sword, that's pretty bad, and I don't think you'd be much safer with a gun.
Personally, if i was trying to "win" a fight, i'd prefer to do it without weapons, since while perhaps a bit idealistic, i do think that weapons aren't necessary to solve battles in most cases.
As far as reasoning with your enemies, it's always a good first step, but unfortunately if they're not listening it's not going to help. If they have the intent to do you harm, they've already limited your options on keeping yourself safe.
Both can be used without training, but you'd probably suck at it.
Swords take skill, as well. Any weapon does. Any weapon can be a tool in the untrained hands, too. I can shoot someone without training, just as I can decapitate someone with an axe without any training. But simply using a tool is different than mastering it. And being able to use it in very basic situations doesn't make it easy to use. It's about getting good, and maximizing the efficiency of a tool in any setting.
I just prefer weapons that have a handle, not hating on people that think differently.
I'm not hating on you, or angry. Or even saying you should like guns. I'm just saying your wording and reasoning in the first post was based on inaccurate, hasty generalized information. You said you could shoot straight, and used that as a reason to say guns were easy and took no skill, which is simply incorrect, that's all~
No goggle or headphones? At a range you're usually REQUIRED to hand eye and ear protection. When you're outside of a range, like using your firearm for personal defense, your hearing will be the least of your concerns. When a man attempted to mug me, I didn't reach to my holster and get out my earplugs before I grabbed my Makarov. I grabbed it and aimed it at the man who was reaching in his pocket to retrieve what I believed to be a knife or at least act as if he had a weapon.
I CAN agree with you that a sword takes a lot more skill than a firearm. However a firearm is easier for most people to use. It's why you have countless firearms safety classes and Concealed Weapons Permit Training classes and ZERO swordplay classes. I've never heard of a "Concealed Sword Permit" or a "License to Carry a Sword" either.
When someone is breaking into your house with a gun, I'm sure your LARP skills and your blunt decorative sword will protect you better than a handgun. While that may work for you, my years of firearms training will stop a burglar instantly. From a distance. Since I don't want a violent criminal in the commission of a violent felony to get anywhere near me. You may want that, but I don't.
I understand what you're saying though, and can agree with you, for the majority of people, a firearm is much easier to use then a sword or melee weapon. That said, that could also be part of the problem. I get that in a real world situation that you wouldn't have time to use protection before firing in self defense, but - still for me it feels like firing a gun is an easy solution, and the weapons feel like for me - that they lack a sense of soul due to mass production. I also like i said, find them loud, and bulky. I don't hate on people that like guns, just prefer seeing someone use a melee weapon. Kind of makes me miss the stories from the dark ages before rifles came into play. It seemed a bit more -real- as it's a lot harder to harm someone at close range, when you watch them die.
Do you think that perhaps the gun symbolizes an industrialization aspect? As to say, that a gun has less depth because it is mass produced, and not hand crafted in the way a sword, or bow would have been created before mass production.
So, while you, her, and I all understand that swords come from the Flea market, and are make in a big factory in China, we can see the symbolic nature of the item is still relevant, even in a post industrial world.
...really. REALLY!?
I dunno. I think that for me, guns are kind of post-industrial, and i prefer the bit of soul weapons used to have. The meaning behind them.
As far as 'soul', most weapons you're talking about were made in bulk no differently than they are today. The only meaning is the meaning you anthropormorphise them to have. Really, handmade guns have more time, care and 'soul' put into them than any handmade sword or bow.
BTW just because some 'socialists/communists' killed their own people DOES NOT automatically mean that all of them would do the same thing. They were trying out a new method of government that they believed would help but the implementation failed and by the time people were dying the governments in question were dictatorships more than communist regimes.
I have a brain and won't stop using it just because you throw around ear-pricking phrases such as 'you're as good as a Nazi if you choose to be a pacifist' or 'communism is evil just like the US made propaganda for since the 1940s.'
The problem with giving government more responsibility to handle more of our daily lives is that you're then giving them more power to control your daily lives. Unlike you, when they make a mistake, there's minimal hardship for them, but when you make a mistake, there's hardships for you. And it's very rarely the case where someone who's never met you and doesn't know you can make better choices about how you should live your life than you can.
http://strawberryquicksand.wordpres.....n-of-humanity/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2nXANNqFnA
As far as people becoming totally helpless without constant government aid, how do you think people survived prior to government stepping in? How is it that anyone survived prior to the government redistributing resources from those that earn to those that don't? Private charities handled much of that, at a much lower cost, with much, much less waste.
As far as the government not wanting to take away our freedoms, maybe a majority of them genuinely don't want to, but there's many that do. That's why we have so many gun bans, soda bans, bans on smoking, tighter restrictions on growing your own food, a mandate to require you to buy a certain insurance plan, and of course an ever dwindling freedom of privacy.
If you want the 'freedom' to more easily harm yourself (like with soda and smoking) then maybe the government SHOULD be taking control. It's like if your parents ground you for punching a wall, not them locking you in the basement with only bread and water. Americans will continue to have 'privacy' and 'freedom' because those are the conditions where creativity blooms brightest.
The last part of your statement sort of makes my skin crawl. What if I like to have a drink of wine every now and then? Yes, large quantities of liquor can be harmful, but it's not the job of the government to forbid me from doing anything I may enjoy out of fear that I may cause injury to myself, thusly costing them more money now that they've taken over healthcare. But that's exactly what I was saying the problem was when you give government more responsibilities over your decisions.
Responsible parents should ground their kids for punching a hole in a soft wall. If you punch a brick wall and hurt yourself, you're not doing harm to them, it's a good learning experience.
First off, I do not care what they believe they are doing. If they are breaking the 4th amendment, they better prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that they saved the country with that info. The burden of proof is not on us, the citizens. It is on them, as they ARE BREAKING THE LAW, AND TRASHING A RIGHT!
I have proof. Edward Snowden is a character they are painting in a very bad light.He worked for a 3rd party contractor in a very high security office. He never graduated High School, is an idealistic hermit, and ran off to China with a breifcase full of secrets. Where is the accountability?
And if you really don't care, so long as it's for your own good. May I have your address? Or your Facebook password? I am no more qualified, or known than an NSA handler. They don't have the highest standards for employment and they are made up of individuals. How does simply putting on an NSA uniform change your inherent morality. A bad man in a good uniform is still a bad man. Or hell, has the NSA even proven the ethical principal to earn or trust.
More often, a criminal will see an opportunity when an officer is bent over or not fully paying attention where they can make a grab for that gun on their belt. It doesn't take any fancy moves to dive or grab. That's why weapon retention is such a big training point for many, but unfortunately not all, officers.
People seem to not remember that when the Bill of Rights was enacted, we had just fought a bloody war against a government that wanted to take firearms from their citizens to keep an insurrection from happening in the first place. That's why they made sure that the people were able to defend themselves from a tyrannical government in the future so we would not have to go through this again.
Anti gunners think that keeping us law-abiding citizens from owning firearms will make us safer because they themselves do not feel safe owning a firearm. My policy on it has been Libertarian since i could comprehend it all. If you don't want a gun, don't buy one. Just like with the anti-abortion crowd on the other side of the political spectrum. If you don't want an abortion, don't get one. My firearm ownership and my ability to carry a handgun on my person helps protect myself directly and yourself indirectly, as states that have strict anti-firearm laws have higher crime rates (look at Cook County, IL, which has been the murder capital for years) compared to states where citizens can carry firearms either with or without a permit.
I do know that if I were required to turn in my firearms, I would hand it over after I handed them every single round I had via my barrel regardless of who it was.
If they didn't, then perhaps you should consider the possibility that arguments like the one you've been engaging in are serving little purpose, since you're not convincing anyone who doesn't already agree with you.
Apart from the entertainment value of arguing with strangers on the internet, of course.
screams
I disagree with it being a "modern education" thing, though. I think it's a result of most everyone having been lied to so many times that they'll just assume you're also lieing, before you even open your mouth.
I think that people tend to start out by assuming that everything their told is a lie and work from there. I haven't the data to speak to whether that's a change from historical standards, though people seem have grown less trusting during my own lifetime.
One of my favorite sayings is, "if you don't stand for something, you will fall for anything." I like that quite a bit. As all you need is a core of morality, and you can wade though the BS without falling in it.
Regarding the last point... everyone that I've ever met has a core morality of their own from which they draw their positions on most morality-based decisions. And my experience has been that people create justifications for the positions which they've already chosen, rather than coming to those positions based on fact or reasoning. As such, arguing over their justifications is largely pointless, since those things were just added on later to help them feel better about the positions which they've already selected. It's akin to trying to move a chair by pushing on it's shadow.
I suppose you could (attempt to) argue with them over their core morality, but that argument doesn't really go anywhere, since it's essentially an arbitrary decision, which is why such those matters never actually get settled, in practice.
Still, in as much as it's an entertaining pass time, there's nothing wrong with enjoying it. I just encourage the recognition that your opposition has essentially the same motivations and processes that you do. But since they've started with a different chair, they get a different shadow.
Also, I tend to argue in a few different avenues. Just like in debate club. It's all contextual. I actually competed mainly in Student Congress. It's part emotional, part evidence, part Lincoln/Douglas. I tend to find the weakest point, and work from there. On occasion, it is morality.
And, yes. I do enjoy this sort of entertainment. I get to study up on a subject at the same time as I am being entertained.
Though I would recommend working on it in RL, if you can. The internet is convenient, but not the best venue if your goal is to convince people.