Unlimited "Guns, Fuck Yeah!" Thread

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I'm certainly not a Liberal.

Depends.  One kind of liberal is your Madison-Franklin-Henry kind of liberal.  Then there's the save the whales Berkeley kind of liberal.  Then there's the kind of liberal that knows what's best for everyone, and wants everyone to be SAFE.  These are the same assholes who decide to outlaw smoking in all taverns, for example (as if people in taverns are concerned about their health).

Guess which one you come off as?

[AFK]

These are the same assholes who decide to outlaw smoking in all taverns, for example (as if people in taverns are concerned about their health).

Bartenders have lungs too.  It's a workplace wellness issue.


I would describe myself as more of a Centrist, if we are going to use a common traditional traditional political categorization. 

[The Good Reverend Roger]

These are the same assholes who decide to outlaw smoking in all taverns, for example (as if people in taverns are concerned about their health).

Bartenders have lungs too.  It's a workplace wellness issue.


I would describe myself as more of a Centrist, if we are going to use a common traditional traditional political categorization.

Everyone considers them a centrist.

And taverns should have the right to decide if they are smoking or non-smoking, provided they advertize their status.

But I wouldn't expect you to have any give on that issue, either.

[tyrannosaurus vex]

So, a position in support of outlawing drugs, guns, and smoking is now a "Centrist" position?

Okay... since we're beating around the Constitutional bush here, I'm gonna go all Thomas Paine on you for a minute.

A "Right" is not something you or anyone else, or any government, has any authority to grant or deny. A "right" is something that already is. In a natural state, everything is permitted. There are no rules; no responsibilities; only rights. Every man for himself. Natural law.

Now, since that clearly will not do if we have decided to have a civilization, it is necessary to institute some kind of authority among ourselves in order to provide for some kind of curtailment of some natural rights. Theft and murder, for example, are to things that will quickly burn a society down if they go unchecked. So we have decided that as a group of primates who would rather cooperate with than kill each other, that we can't allow ourselves to indulge in these rights. So, we establish a government and -- this is important so listen up -- give it a monopoly on these rights.

The rights that we regulate with our government do not disappear. They are simply claimed by our government, and our legal system gives that government the moral authority to exercise these rights. So murder and theft don't go away: they become the penal/justice system and the tax system.

Now here is the main part of the entire "governing ourselves" part where you seem to diverge from the established philosophy of democratic self-rule. See, the government is not the source of rights. It is a system for blocking access to natural rights. It is also a system that is defined by the people it governs. So, if the people say "fuck you, I have a right to my guns," then the proper response from the government is, "yes, sir." Not, "yeah but..." And if you disagree with the popular sentiment that people have a right to their guns, then the proper course of action for you to take is to convince enough people to forfeit that right that they tell the government to block it, not work to have the government preemptively block access to that right before the people are ready for it.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

So, a position in support of outlawing drugs, guns, and smoking is now a "Centrist" position?

Okay... since we're beating around the Constitutional bush here, I'm gonna go all Thomas Paine on you for a minute.

A "Right" is not something you or anyone else, or any government, has any authority to grant or deny. A "right" is something that already is. In a natural state, everything is permitted. There are no rules; no responsibilities; only rights. Every man for himself. Natural law.

Now, since that clearly will not do if we have decided to have a civilization, it is necessary to institute some kind of authority among ourselves in order to provide for some kind of curtailment of some natural rights. Theft and murder, for example, are to things that will quickly burn a society down if they go unchecked. So we have decided that as a group of primates who would rather cooperate with than kill each other, that we can't allow ourselves to indulge in these rights. So, we establish a government and -- this is important so listen up -- give it a monopoly on these rights.

The rights that we regulate with our government do not disappear. They are simply claimed by our government, and our legal system gives that government the moral authority to exercise these rights. So murder and theft don't go away: they become the penal/justice system and the tax system.

Now here is the main part of the entire "governing ourselves" part where you seem to diverge from the established philosophy of democratic self-rule. See, the government is not the source of rights. It is a system for blocking access to natural rights. It is also a system that is defined by the people it governs. So, if the people say "fuck you, I have a right to my guns," then the proper response from the government is, "yes, sir." Not, "yeah but..." And if you disagree with the popular sentiment that people have a right to their guns, then the proper course of action for you to take is to convince enough people to forfeit that right that they tell the government to block it, not work to have the government preemptively block access to that right before the people are ready for it.

I think you're confusing "rights" with "capabilities".  True, you aren't granted rights, but you aren't born with them, either.  They are first seized, then assumed.

But you are 100% right about the government's role...Which is why the constitution isn't a list of rights, but rather an inclusive list of government powers (Patrick Henry objected to the bill of rights on two grounds...First, that it would confuse the purpose of the constitution, and that it would make rights seem inclusive, rather than exclusive.).

[East Coast Hustle]

Legislation that didn't do jack the first time, and will effect the class of weapons that are involved in a very small amount of total deaths caused by weapons simply so that it will pave the way to further restrict other classes of firearms is good in your eyes?

That legislation was shitty and full of holes and is an inadequate measuring stick.  Perhaps something with more teeth and less holes will work better.

So what would have more teeth?

For starters, in my opinion, it probably should include more weapons, what weapons are included should be based on crime data. Also, The sunset clause should be eliminated.

So, innocent peoples' rights should be curtailed based on the preferences of criminals.

First class police state you're designing in your head, there.

I don't agree that it would be a curtailment of rights, as we have already discussed at length.

How on earth do you rationalize the idea that infringing on someones right to keep and bear arms does not infringe on their right to keep and bear arms?

[LMNO]

So, a position in support of outlawing drugs, guns, and smoking is now a "Centrist" position?

Okay... since we're beating around the Constitutional bush here, I'm gonna go all Thomas Paine on you for a minute.

A "Right" is not something you or anyone else, or any government, has any authority to grant or deny. A "right" is something that already is. In a natural state, everything is permitted. There are no rules; no responsibilities; only rights. Every man for himself. Natural law.

Now, since that clearly will not do if we have decided to have a civilization, it is necessary to institute some kind of authority among ourselves in order to provide for some kind of curtailment of some natural rights. Theft and murder, for example, are to things that will quickly burn a society down if they go unchecked. So we have decided that as a group of primates who would rather cooperate with than kill each other, that we can't allow ourselves to indulge in these rights. So, we establish a government and -- this is important so listen up -- give it a monopoly on these rights.

The rights that we regulate with our government do not disappear. They are simply claimed by our government, and our legal system gives that government the moral authority to exercise these rights. So murder and theft don't go away: they become the penal/justice system and the tax system.

Now here is the main part of the entire "governing ourselves" part where you seem to diverge from the established philosophy of democratic self-rule. See, the government is not the source of rights. It is a system for blocking access to natural rights. It is also a system that is defined by the people it governs. So, if the people say "fuck you, I have a right to my guns," then the proper response from the government is, "yes, sir." Not, "yeah but..." And if you disagree with the popular sentiment that people have a right to their guns, then the proper course of action for you to take is to convince enough people to forfeit that right that they tell the government to block it, not work to have the government preemptively block access to that right before the people are ready for it.

[Devil's Advocate/Troll]

So, was Loving v. Virginia an improper action on the part of the government?

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Legislation that didn't do jack the first time, and will effect the class of weapons that are involved in a very small amount of total deaths caused by weapons simply so that it will pave the way to further restrict other classes of firearms is good in your eyes?

That legislation was shitty and full of holes and is an inadequate measuring stick.  Perhaps something with more teeth and less holes will work better.

So what would have more teeth?

For starters, in my opinion, it probably should include more weapons, what weapons are included should be based on crime data. Also, The sunset clause should be eliminated.

So, innocent peoples' rights should be curtailed based on the preferences of criminals.

First class police state you're designing in your head, there.

I don't agree that it would be a curtailment of rights, as we have already discussed at length.

We haven't discussed; you have asserted the above.  And you are utterly incorrect, no matter how many thin you slice it.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Legislation that didn't do jack the first time, and will effect the class of weapons that are involved in a very small amount of total deaths caused by weapons simply so that it will pave the way to further restrict other classes of firearms is good in your eyes?

That legislation was shitty and full of holes and is an inadequate measuring stick.  Perhaps something with more teeth and less holes will work better.

So what would have more teeth?

For starters, in my opinion, it probably should include more weapons, what weapons are included should be based on crime data. Also, The sunset clause should be eliminated.

So, innocent peoples' rights should be curtailed based on the preferences of criminals.

First class police state you're designing in your head, there.

I don't agree that it would be a curtailment of rights, as we have already discussed at length.

How on earth do you rationalize the idea that infringing on someones right to keep and bear arms does not infringe on their right to keep and bear arms?

Because rights are, to RWHN, an impediment to Utopia.

[tyrannosaurus vex]

So, a position in support of outlawing drugs, guns, and smoking is now a "Centrist" position?

Okay... since we're beating around the Constitutional bush here, I'm gonna go all Thomas Paine on you for a minute.

A "Right" is not something you or anyone else, or any government, has any authority to grant or deny. A "right" is something that already is. In a natural state, everything is permitted. There are no rules; no responsibilities; only rights. Every man for himself. Natural law.

Now, since that clearly will not do if we have decided to have a civilization, it is necessary to institute some kind of authority among ourselves in order to provide for some kind of curtailment of some natural rights. Theft and murder, for example, are to things that will quickly burn a society down if they go unchecked. So we have decided that as a group of primates who would rather cooperate with than kill each other, that we can't allow ourselves to indulge in these rights. So, we establish a government and -- this is important so listen up -- give it a monopoly on these rights.

The rights that we regulate with our government do not disappear. They are simply claimed by our government, and our legal system gives that government the moral authority to exercise these rights. So murder and theft don't go away: they become the penal/justice system and the tax system.

Now here is the main part of the entire "governing ourselves" part where you seem to diverge from the established philosophy of democratic self-rule. See, the government is not the source of rights. It is a system for blocking access to natural rights. It is also a system that is defined by the people it governs. So, if the people say "fuck you, I have a right to my guns," then the proper response from the government is, "yes, sir." Not, "yeah but..." And if you disagree with the popular sentiment that people have a right to their guns, then the proper course of action for you to take is to convince enough people to forfeit that right that they tell the government to block it, not work to have the government preemptively block access to that right before the people are ready for it.

[Devil's Advocate/Troll]

So, was Loving v. Virginia an improper action on the part of the government?

The difference between outlawing a prohibition on interracial marriage and outlawing firearms is that "outlawing a prohibition" is effectively a double negative, resulting in a net positive for rights, whereas outlawing firearms is just a negative resulting in a net loss of rights. Not that everything always boils down to math, but I think you understand what I'm getting at.

[P3nT4gR4m]

Prohibition is definitely the way to go.

Thanks to alcohol prohibition Al Capone was starved of an opportunity to forge a criminal empire trading contraband hooch. I'm sure Chicago was thankful that things like the St Valentines massacre never happened, all because nasty booze was banned.

Thanks to drug prohibition the Sinaloa cartel never had the means to become a powerful, military force that ruins the lives of countless thousands of mexican farmers.

I'm sure gun prohibition will have exactly the same effect. Personally I'm rooting for it

It's not about guns.  It's about control of people.  It's about knowing what's best for everyone.

Surely, P3nt, you want somebody watching out for your best interests, right?  Telling you what you can and cannot do, to keep you safe.

I don't give a fuck, since I'm going to do what the hell I please anyway. If anything I like shit being illegal cos it adds that extra little fun to the activity. That little extra thrill you get when they turn it into a game of cops and robbers. Realistically, tho, I don't like being told what I can and can't do, on principle, rather than because it prevents me in any practical way.

Give you an example. Couple of weeks back me and P3nTGF head into town to see Hobbit at the local cinema. Local cinema is in the middle of a huge retail park in town, with a carpark half a mile square, the cinema at the far end from where we drive in. So we watch the movie and we come out and there's all these fucking gate barriers blocking the way we came in, forcing us to drive out the other end and add half a mile journey onto our route.

They do this because all the boy racers in central scotland like to use this carpark as a drag strip after dark and, rather than either leave them to it or (perish the thought) do their fucking job, the local filth decide that stopping everyone from driving through the carpark is the way forward.

I figure if there was a chance of any scum being nearby there wouldn't be a need for gates in the first place, so I  drove up to the far end, where there's only one barrier between us and the exit, then I nipped out the car, kicked the lock open and fucked off into the sunset.

Other people don't seem to think this way. They just spend the extra buck o-five on petrol and bitch and whine about the law. Law doesn't apply to me so I don't really see the point in bitching.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I don't give a fuck, since I'm going to do what the hell I please anyway. If anything I like shit being illegal cos it adds that extra little fun to the activity. That little extra thrill you get when they turn it into a game of cops and robbers. Realistically, tho, I don't like being told what I can and can't do, on principle, rather than because it prevents me in any practical way.

DING DING DING!

Give that horrible Scotsman a cigar.

[Elder Iptuous]

that works only for things that you are doing for a thrill in the first place.

in the current context, i could imagine that taking your rifle into the woods that you have illegally modified for automatic fire might give an additional little thrill as opposed to doing it the arduous (and expensive) legal way.

however, using a firearm for home defense, despite being illegal (in a hypothetical anti-gun future), would not bring me any additional jollies.  when what you are wanting to do is some act with intrinsic official sanction then changing the law does, in fact, prevent you in a very practical and insurmountable way.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

that works only for things that you are doing for a thrill in the first place.

in the current context, i could imagine that taking your rifle into the woods that you have illegally modified for automatic fire might give an additional little thrill as opposed to doing it the arduous (and expensive) legal way.

however, using a firearm for home defense, despite being illegal (in a hypothetical anti-gun future), would not bring me any additional jollies.  when what you are wanting to do is some act with intrinsic official sanction then changing the law does, in fact, prevent you in a very practical and insurmountable way.

A firearm is a stupid home defense weapon.  You're more likely to have rounds go through the walls with a "HELLO, NURSE" sticker on them.

If you want to defend your house, buy a crowbar.

The 2nd amendment isn't about home defense.

[Elder Iptuous]

while i agree with your final statement, the erosion of of it certainly impacts our ability of home defense.
and i would disagree with your first statement, conditionally.  frangible safety rounds like Glasser makes, or, my preference, bird shot make the issue of overpenetration manageable.  Fundamentally, however, you need to be aware of your target, and what's behind your target. (no small task, given the pressures, i understand)
Regardless, i would say that a firearm beats a stick.  even a steel stick.  just my opinion, and i'm not looking to press it, though.