Unlimited "Guns, Fuck Yeah!" Thread

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I can't think of a better reason, saving lives.  Rights and freedoms mean nothing to someone who is dead.

And a life without rights and freedoms is cheap.  Starvation cheap.

Really?  Really?  You are going to equate having a few less firearms that someone (with the considerable disposable income necessary to purchase said firearms) can purchase with starvation?  C'mon, this is First World Problem territory here.

Yeah, I am.  "Starvation cheap" is an old term meaning "worthless".  I have always been a fan of Patrick Henry.

[LMNO]

Messing with the Bill of Rights is most certainly a first-world problem. I for one would prefer it stay that way.

On this, I must agree with ECH. In fact I DEMAND to agree with him.

[AFK]

I can't think of a better reason, saving lives.  Rights and freedoms mean nothing to someone who is dead.

And a life without rights and freedoms is cheap.  Starvation cheap.

Really?  Really?  You are going to equate having a few less firearms that someone (with the considerable disposable income necessary to purchase said firearms) can purchase with starvation?  C'mon, this is First World Problem territory here.

Yeah, I am.  "Starvation cheap" is an old term meaning "worthless".  I have always been a fan of Patrick Henry.

So a life with a few less gun purchase options is "worthless", really?  I'm sorry but I find that to be a rather pathetic concept.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I can't think of a better reason, saving lives.  Rights and freedoms mean nothing to someone who is dead.

And a life without rights and freedoms is cheap.  Starvation cheap.

Really?  Really?  You are going to equate having a few less firearms that someone (with the considerable disposable income necessary to purchase said firearms) can purchase with starvation?  C'mon, this is First World Problem territory here.

Yeah, I am.  "Starvation cheap" is an old term meaning "worthless".  I have always been a fan of Patrick Henry.

So a life with a few less gun purchase options is "worthless", really?  I'm sorry but I find that to be a rather pathetic concept.

You're having a little trouble with the principle I'm trying to convey, I think.

[AFK]

Then try again.  Because that's really sounds like what you are saying.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Then try again.  Because that's really sounds like what you are saying.

I kinda feel sorry for you, RWHN.  Seriously.

[Cain]

Rights and freedoms mean nothing to someone who is dead..

Marc Thiessen says the exact same thing, when it comes to why we need to strap down random Arabs and torture them.

Which is in a completely different context and scenario and has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand.

The point ->


Your head ->

If you can't see how it relates, that's just showing how blind you are concerning what accepting your premise would actually entail.   But then again, that's not news, because you actually advanced that argument, like you thought it would be a winning move or something.

Here, I'll spell it out for you: "saving lives" can not be the end all of public policy because....almost anything can be justified by the need to save lives.  Torture, murder, war...and many other things besides.  You cannot logically accept "saving lives" as your highest premise and then not accept the need to torture terrorists for information concerning plots.  You cannot logically accept saving lives as your highest premise and not embrace political assassination as a tool.  Or indeed the right to medicate people against their will or without their consent.  Your premise leads you into an ethical dead end.

[AFK]

Then try again.  Because that's really sounds like what you are saying.

I kinda feel sorry for you, RWHN.  Seriously.

I don't give a fuck.


So tell me where I interpreted it wrong. 

[AFK]

Rights and freedoms mean nothing to someone who is dead..

Marc Thiessen says the exact same thing, when it comes to why we need to strap down random Arabs and torture them.

Which is in a completely different context and scenario and has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand.

The point ->


Your head ->

If you can't see how it relates, that's just showing how blind you are concerning what accepting your premise would actually entail.   But then again, that's not news, because you actually advanced that argument, like you thought it would be a winning move or something.

Here, I'll spell it out for you: "saving lives" can not be the end all of public policy because....almost anything can be justified by the need to save lives.  Torture, murder, war...and many other things besides.  You cannot logically accept "saving lives" as your highest premise and then not accept the need to torture terrorists for information concerning plots.  You cannot logically accept saving lives as your highest premise and not embrace political assassination as a tool.  Or indeed the right to medicate people against their will or without their consent.  Your premise leads you into an ethical dead end.

That's bullshit when you actually apply it to the reality of the current, stalemate, political climate that exists in America.  Policy happens on a case by case basis, and at a snail's pace, which is being generous.  I don't buy the "slippery slope" argument because our Congress couldn't do that even if it wanted to the way it is divided.  They can't fucking agree on money for hurricane victims for Christ's sake.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Then try again.  Because that's really sounds like what you are saying.

I kinda feel sorry for you, RWHN.  Seriously.

I don't give a fuck.


So tell me where I interpreted it wrong.

I'm talking principle, you don't seem to know what that is.  Your entire worldview is based on expedience.

[AFK]

Principle is fine and dandy up until it meets the real world.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Principle is fine and dandy up until it meets the real world.

That's exactly what I'm talking about.

If your principles can't stand up to the real world, you don't have any.

[AFK]

See, from my observation, the big divide here is that I think there are many here who are arguing from an academic perspective, principle, "slippery slope" arguments, etc.  It's broad level talk based on a theoretical long view.  But it doesn't actually factor in the reality of what's happening right now. 


Christ, an assault weapon ban was enacted in the 90s, and not only have we not fallen into an inescapable, freedomless dystopia, the fucking ban died and wasn't renewed. 


Taking some weapons off the market is not going to rob us of all of our freedoms, fuck, it's not going to rob us of ANY of our freedoms.  All that will change is that it will take you a few more minutes to fill that hay bale in your back yard full of lead.  You can still have a shit load of weapons if you really want. 


But it might just buy our guys in blue those few extra seconds that maybe results in 15 dead kids instead of 20, which has a huge impact for those five families who have empty chairs at their dinner tables right now.

[AFK]

It's tantamount to religion and it just really bugs the fuck out of me that progress that could save lives is held up because of that shit. 

[The Good Reverend Roger]

It's tantamount to religion and it just really bugs the fuck out of me that progress that could save lives is held up because of that shit.

Yeah, well, tough titties.  Your safety < my rights.

Sorry about that.