The Glamorization of Murder

[Behemoth]

Convenient that you get to decide what counts as "outgunned", based on nothing more than your certainty of how an insurgency would play out. Allows you to completely rule out being targeted from the air, the superior firepower the Mil/Police has access to, their advanced intelligence capabilities, etc., and also allows you to count every .22 repeater that somebody's Paw-paw left 'em when he died towards the "defense against tyranny" justification of gun vending machines.

This is the truth of the matter. An real insurgency would be a bloody, ugly mess. It would drag on and on and on. The outcome would depend on a number of factors, and it is not something you can ascertain by calculating the number of guns in America. Your simplistic assessment is garbage.

Listen, just because I know more than you is no reason to be upset.

Is there a correlation between gun crime and the possession of a gun?

Yes, a 1 to 1 ratio. In the same way that there is a 1 to 1 ratio of driving a car drunk and people who drive cars. This is, of course, a nonsensical point.

What I am saying is this: much like you are required to be licensed and registered before you are legally allowed to drive, I believe you should be be required to be licensed and registered before you possess a gun in any part of society, including on your own private property.

And I'm pointing out these are not the same thing, one is a license to operate a vehicle on government-owned roads, the other is to purchase an item. Thus, the comparison is bad.

I'm also calling you a statist bootlicker, but that's been done.

 

[Behemoth]

Of all the arguments supporting the right of ordinary citizens to own guns (many of which I agree with), the defense of political liberty seems the weakest. The power of the modern state can be controlled only through political means. If you reject politics because it's seen as rigged/compromised/ineffectual, then the war is already lost.

I mean, given I reject the modern state as immoral, so... I dunno, I'd argue given the argument is sold, its the best argument.

What the state could do (if it came to this) is freeze your credit, bank accounts, revoke your passport and driver's license, invalidate your birth certificate, take away your social security and other benefits, and track your activities with electronic and physical surveillance (e.g., drones)--in short, make you a non-person in the civilized world. You (or others with similar proclivities) might be prepared for this, or respond to it, by living off the grid. But that further weakens your ability to fight the state in any organized effective fashion.

All of these would largely lead to further radicalization and violence, and are unlikely to be possible on a large segment of the population.

Arguable, even if this was true, it would be an argument for gutting the state more than anything.

 

[Osmia]

On the other hand it could be that the ones pushing for more guns are backed by the gun maufacturers with the same $$ grabbing agenda and profiting every time theres a mass shooting or someone threatens more gun control and gun sales surge. Maybe they are also guilty of misrepresenting information?<snip>

This brings to mind something that's puzzled me in recent years. The gun lobby and the pro-gun movement (as distinct from the mass of ordinary, law-abiding, gun-owning citizens) seem hell-bent on pushing boundaries of conspicuous gun deployment. For example, concealed-carry by civilians was once the frontier of gun rights activism. Now it's commonplace, and we have open carry in many states, and starting next month, concealed carry in Texas public universities. What's next, shoulder-launched anti-aircraft missiles in churches? Why not? Stable, law-abiding owners would not be a threat. This is obviously a reductio ad absurdum argument, but the reality seems to be catching up to the absurdity.

In other words, these expansions in gun-carrying permissibility seem driven more by an absolutist expansionist ideology than as responses to real or perceived threats. And it seems like the gun lobby/movement is in danger of outpacing the political comfort zone of the millions of legal gun owners who have guns for specific, practical reasons (i.e., they are non-ideological).

 

[justjoinedtopost]

Listen, just because I know more than you is no reason to be upset.

I am not upset at all. To the contrary.

This is the truth of the matter. A real insurgency would be a bloody, ugly mess. It would drag on and on and on. The outcome would depend on a number of factors, and it is not something you can ascertain by calculating the number of guns in America. Your simplistic assessment is garbage.

Yes, a 1 to 1 ratio. In the same way that there is a 1 to 1 ratio of driving a car drunk and people who drive cars. This is, of course, a nonsensical point.

And until you get to the point where you are as willing to let government regulate gun possession as you are let them regulate driving without howling about tyranny, it will remain a nonsensical point to you.

And I'm pointing out these are not the same thing, one is a license to operate a vehicle on government-owned roads, the other is to purchase an item. Thus, the comparison is bad.

I hope this country gets to the point where you are required to be licensed and registered to sell, or purchase, or possess those items legally.

 

[Behemoth]

And until you get to the point where you are as willing to let government regulate gun possession as you are let them regulate driving without howling about tyranny, it will remain a nonsensical point to you.

Jokes on you, I hate government regulations of all kind.

Incidentally, driving on roads you don't own is not a right. Buying property and self-defense are.

This is the truth of the matter. A real insurgency would be a bloody, ugly mess. It would drag on and on and on. The outcome would depend on a number of factors, and it is not something you can ascertain by calculating the number of guns in America. Your simplistic assessment is garbage.

True, which is why it was never the whole of my argument.

I hope this country gets to the point where you are required to be licensed and registered to sell, or purchase, or possess those items legally.

Of course you do, you're an authoritarian.

 

[fandango]

Jokes on you, I hate government regulations of all kind.

What would you propose as a better system?

Are you suggesting no government and some wild west style free for all where everyone only looks out for themselves?

 

[justjoinedtopost]

Jokes on you, I hate government regulations of all kind.

Incidentally, driving on roads you don't own is not a right. Buying property and self-defense are.

Interesting. Do you consider the 2nd amendment to be an example of government regulation?
Incidentally, driving on roads you don't own is regulated. Possessing firearms in a society you don't own should be regulated as well.
Incidentally, there are things I would not want to see for sale to the general public because "buying property is a right". Firearms belong on this list imo.
Incidentally, possession of a firearm does not equal self-defense.
Incidentally, declaring gun ownership a "human right" is absurd on many levels.

True, which is why it was never the whole of my argument.

Was this not your argument: "Allow me to reiterate then, and clarify: an insurgency of any note in the US will succeed essentially without a doubt, because actually, yes, the population is largely armed comparably to the police and substantively the armed forces in the ways that matter for fighting an insurgency."?

Were you not attempting to shore up the ridiculous notion that firearm ownership serves as a defense against tyranny?

Go ahead Chuckles. Strut your stuff.

 

[Behemoth]

What would you propose as a better system?

Are you suggesting no government and some wild west style free for all where everyone only looks out for themselves?

Yes, I'm suggesting no government, which provides no services that cannot be provided more effectively, more efficiently, and all around better by a system based entirely on individual rights, largely property rights, and privatized institutions. I'm an anarcho-capitalist. The fundimental truth that taxation is, and cannot be explained as anything but, theft and that the state functions as nothing more than a group that claims the monopoly on the use of force and funds itself through theft and extortion means that it is not merely preferable to replace it, but morally necessary. Of course, pragmatically speaking, I understand this requires a long period of time and so instead simply, in the short term promote a gradual reduction in state power to the point that, eventually, it can be simply eliminated and no one will even seem to notice.

Incidentally, the story of the wild west is a funny one. Despite the popular image, it was actually largely no more violent or 'wild,' and violence that did erupt has links more to government policy than anything.

I really dislike this false dichotomy of state vs wildness, because anarchy means no rulers, not no rules. The state, given it flagrantly disregards the law and protects some from consequences so much we use that very idea as the butt of jokes, is no more a defender or icon of 'law' than of anything. People work together, people cooperate, people form agreements and contracts and arbitrate disputes without a state holding their hand all the time.

Were you not attempting to shore up the ridiculous notion that firearm ownership serves as a defense against tyranny?

Actually, I was making the point that of the sort of arms necessary for an insurgency, the population is not outgunned. IE: literally read exactly what I wrote. Literally, it's explicitly what I wrote, and what you quoted.

The fact that arms are a defense against tyranny is its entirely own animal, linked but distinct.

Interesting. Do you consider the 2nd amendment to be an example of government regulation?

Only in terms it is a regulation against which the government CANNOT do a thing, because explicitly it's about a list of rights people have that the government cannot infringe upon legally or morally. And, further still, those rights are explicitly stated to be things people have that are ENUMERATED but not GRANTED by the constitution.

Incidentally, driving on roads you don't own is regulated. Possessing firearms in a society you don't own should be regulated as well.

This is literally a nonsense statement. Driving on roads you down own is regulated, because logically, you are operating on the property of another entity. Society is not property. Society is an abstract concept that does not exist. This entire argument is comparing operating a vehicle on lands owned by someone else to possessing an object inside an abstract concept.

Further, logically one could say a government can regulate driving laws because they own the land, they do not own the concept of society.

Incidentally, there are things I would not want to see for sale to the general public because "buying property is a right". Firearms belong on this list imo.

Yes, it's well established you're an authoritarian who can't back up their view with a rational argument, I know. You don't believe in individual rights, because if you did, this entire argument would collapse, because it requires arbitrary distinctions in rights. Frankly, there are plenty of things I wouldn't want to see folks own, or for general sale, but I recognize the fact that I have no moral or ethical right to dictate my desires onto other people.

Incidentally, possession of a firearm does not equal self-defense.

Of course not, firearms are merely the most effective tool for it, broadly speaking, and that has more to do with a right to carrying. The right to property is about purchasing or otherwise possessing a firearm.

Incidentally, declaring gun ownership a "human right" is absurd on many levels.

None of which you bother to enumerate, once again failing to make any sort of argument to back up your claims.

 

[Osmia]

Yes, I'm suggesting no government, which provides no services that cannot be provided more effectively, more efficiently, and all around better by a system based entirely on individual rights, largely property rights, and privatized institutions. I'm an anarcho-capitalist. The fundimental truth that taxation is, and cannot be explained as anything but, theft and that the state functions as nothing more than a group that claims the monopoly on the use of force and funds itself through theft and extortion means that it is not merely preferable to replace it, but morally necessary. Of course, pragmatically speaking, I understand this requires a long period of time and so instead simply, in the short term promote a gradual reduction in state power to the point that, eventually, it can be simply eliminated and no one will even seem to notice.
....
I really dislike this false dichotomy of state vs wildness, because anarchy means no rulers, not no rules. The state, given it flagrantly disregards the law and protects some from consequences so much we use that very idea as the butt of jokes, is no more a defender or icon of 'law' than of anything. People work together, people cooperate, people form agreements and contracts and arbitrate disputes without a state holding their hand all the time.
....

Behemoth, I have a couple of questions that occur to me whenever I encounter an anarchist or extreme libertarian:

(1) Do you believe that the type of political existence you seek is a reversion to how humans organized themselves prior to the advent of the state (including monarchy)? If so, wouldn't your stateless society inevitably evolve back to an organized state? The fact that almost all the earth's people today live in some form of a state system suggests that this is what people want (they don't want to live in a "state of nature"), or put another way, it's a system that has been strongly favored by human nature and evolution. If it's not a reversion, how is it an advancement?

(2) Given that the overwhelming majority of people in any nation/state do not want anarchy (even if it has rules, but no rulers, as you said), where/how will you establish this stateless, ruler-less existence? Will you be satisfied living in an enclave analogous to an Indian reservation?

 

[Behemoth]

(1) Do you believe that the type of political existence you seek is a reversion to how humans organized themselves prior to the advent of the state (including monarchy)? If so, wouldn't your stateless society inevitably evolve back to an organized state? The fact that almost all the earth's people today live in some form of a state system suggests that this is what people want (they don't want to live in a "state of nature"), or put another way, it's a system that has been strongly favored by human nature and evolution. If it's not a reversion, how is it an advancement?

No, I believe it is an evolution, in that it is progress towards a freer form of organizing society, built around principles that took many thousands of years to develop, as well as due to the advent of technologies and the like that makes them possible. IE: the advent of capitalism and the Industrial Revolution, which in turn is the reduction in necessary manpower to produce enough food to feed a growing society.

I think the systems we've had HAVE been a natural part of nature (both human and actual,) which de facto means evolution as well. The environment and situations we've been in also are a major factor here, as they are in anything about us. It's the nature of things. I simply don't think that because 'well, we've always had a state' is really an argument any more than 'well, we've always had a king' or 'well, we've always had slavery' or 'well, we've always had x.' I don't think the argument that most people live in it, therefor they want it works either. Of course most people live in it, that's how society has been organized. That doesn't mean progress and change is somehow not desired. Arguably, people want their lives to be BETTER, and may have many ideas on how that could be achieved. I simply propose one avenue that I believe can be rationally argued to achieve these ends.

After all, if I went to most folks and said "would you like to live in a world where you make more money, have higher quality services including both law enforcement and medical, and innovation leads to even greater advances in technology and so on, I'd argue most folks would say yes, broadly speaking, this is a world they'd like to live.

It is an advancement towards a better way of organizing, recognizing the dangers of giving so much power to humans who can and will abuse that power, and embracing liberty and freedom as guiding principles, followed to its logical extent.

It's also a moral system, given its not one based on theft and extortion.

(2) Given that the overwhelming majority of people in any nation/state do not want anarchy (even if it has rules, but no rulers, as you said), where/how will you establish this stateless, ruler-less existence? Will you be satisfied living in an enclave analogous to an Indian reservation?

I don't know if that's the best thing I'd like it to be analogous too, but conceptually, I'd happily reside in an enclave organized on these principles, for the simple reason that I believe that an enclave predicated on individual rights, organized this way absolutely would not merely be successful, but inevitably attract more and more growth to the point that it will inevitably spread.

 

[justjoinedtopost]

Actually, I was making the point that of the sort of arms necessary for an insurgency, the population is not outgunned. IE: literally read exactly what I wrote. Literally, it's explicitly what I wrote, and what you quoted.

Oh.

How did you determine what portion of the population was going to be part of this hypothetical insurgency? Because the only guns that would count would be the ones in the hands of an insurgent. Certainly something worth looking at before we start claiming certainty about the outcome.

This is literally a nonsense statement. Driving on roads you down own is regulated, because logically, you are operating on the property of another entity. Society is not property. Society is an abstract concept that does not exist. This entire argument is comparing operating a vehicle on lands owned by someone else to possessing an object inside an abstract concept.

Further, logically one could say a government can regulate driving laws because they own the land, they do not own the concept of society.

Ok. Assuming we are talking about real guns and real bullets, and not their abstract counterparts that don't exist, let's pretend when I said society I meant to say "body of individuals living as members of a community". So let me rephrase what I said...
"Incidentally, driving on roads you don't own is regulated. Possession of firearms, within the body of individuals living as members of our community, which you don't own, should be regulated as well."

It was your interpretation that was nonsense. Strain at the gnat, swallow the camel.

Frankly, there are plenty of things I wouldn't want to see folks own, or for general sale, but I recognize the fact that I have no moral or ethical right to dictate my desires onto other people.

Never mind morals or ethics; what about prudence?

Of course not

Then on this we agree. Gun possession does not equal self defense. Which is ironic, considering that self defense is the main reason I am in favor of gun ownership.

After all, if I went to most folks and said "would you like to live in a world where you make more money, have higher quality services including both law enforcement and medical, and innovation leads to even greater advances in technology and so on, I'd argue most folks would say yes, broadly speaking, this is a world they'd like to live.

It is an advancement towards a better way of organizing, recognizing the dangers of giving so much power to humans who can and will abuse that power, and embracing liberty and freedom as guiding principles, followed to its logical extent.

It's also a moral system, given its not one based on theft and extortion.

Idk. I'm not particularly thrilled with the status quo. I'd like to believe it's possible. But it just sounds a little too much like a new cam site for my tastes.

 

[Nordling]

While all governments contain elements of corruption, since they're in the domain of humans, that's also true of the mob, society, or "group of individuals who make up a nation." While I certainly don't give all my trust to governments, I do trust ours more than the mob. At least we can vote to in some ways balance the government's virtue with its corruption, we have NO way of controlling corporations, cabals, or mobs--other than via our elected government.

 

[Behemoth]

While all governments contain elements of corruption, since they're in the domain of humans, that's also true of the mob, society, or "group of individuals who make up a nation." While I certainly don't give all my trust to governments, I do trust ours more than the mob. At least we can vote to in some ways balance the government's virtue with its corruption, we have NO way of controlling corporations, cabals, or mobs--other than via our elected government.

I'll get to @justjoinedtopost when I'm back on my home PC later, but this I can handle from my phone: this makes no sense.

First, invoking terms like 'the mob' is not particularly useful. However, I don't understand why you seem to make some arbitrary distinction between humans in the 'mob,' really just general population, and those in 'the government.' Why do you do this?

Secondly, voting does not matter, and even if it did, that wouldn't make democracy somehow inherently ethical. Simply because a majority vote to authorize the state to steal does not make that theft moral.

And no, you can't balance 'virtue' with 'corruption' because that is a. Not a valid trade, ethically and b. Also isn't true. Instead, we see a gradual growth of corruption, that can be inevitably predicted, and a dimminishing of what could be called virtue.

And third, the opposite is actually true. The government is the vehicle by which corporations (that exist only by government support,) or other groups can have such power, by exploiting the power of the state to impose upon you. You seem to miss that if those groups have the power, they'll just engage in regulatory capture and suddenly your state is just yet another tool they can exploit for their benefit, not yours.

And I've laid out how the interests of the government and that of its citizens are naturally at odds earlier in this thread.

The state is not your friend and never was.

 

[Nordling]

I really don't care to discuss it. Believe your Objectivist nonsense all you want.

 

[Behemoth]

I really don't care to discuss it. Believe your Objectivist nonsense all you want.

Funny, because I'm not an Objectivist.

Glad you've found a way to remain haughty and smug though.

 

[Nordling]

Funny, because I'm not an Objectivist.

Glad you've found a way to remain haughty and smug though.

Oh, sorry, Sovereign Citizen then? lol

 

[Behemoth]

Oh, sorry, Sovereign Citizen then? lol

It stands out that your first reaction is to rattle off few things, which you clearly know next to nothing about because they don't relate at all to what my arguments have been or things I've said, but they're derogatory to you so you're attributing them to me. Either you're ignorant, or being intentionally misleading. Neither is a particularly good option. You made a post, making an argument of why the state is good, and I pointed out the rational flaws in that argument, two which you turn around and say you don't REALLY want a discussion and then just accuse me of being in two groups you probably couldn't actually define without a trip to Google.

Nah, brah, nah.

 

[Bocefish]

Just saw this and thought it was pretty spot on...

https://ispot.tv/a/AD35

 

[justjoinedtopost]

Just saw this and thought it was pretty spot on...

https://ispot.tv/a/AD35

For propaganda perhaps.

It says, there is unemployment, education problems, lack of police (???), drugs, gangs recruiting kids, and unprosecuted gun crimes; therefore, calling for gun control is "the most despicable form of racism".

They are blowing the dog whistle. This is a recruitment tool. The NRA wants to get its African-American membership numbers up, and it is not because they care about racism.

edit: or perhaps they are trying build on racist sentiments that may be present in their organization. Idk.

 

[Bocefish]

For propaganda perhaps.

It says, there is unemployment, education problems, lack of police (???), drugs, gangs recruiting kids, and unprosecuted gun crimes; therefore, calling for gun control is "the most despicable form of racism".

They are blowing the dog whistle. This is a recruitment tool. The NRA wants to get its African-American membership numbers up, and it is not because they care about racism.

edit: or perhaps they are trying build on racist sentiments that may be present in their organization. Idk.

You may see it as propaganda, but it also happens to be the truth regarding some inner-city conditions like Chicago.

 

[justjoinedtopost]

You may see it as propaganda, but it also happens to be the truth regarding some inner-city conditions like Chicago.

No Bocefish.

Two statements:
It says, there is unemployment, education problems, lack of police (???), drugs, gangs recruiting kids, and unprosecuted gun crimes; therefore, calling for gun control is "the most despicable form of racism".
It says, there is unemployment, education problems, lack of police (???), drugs, gangs recruiting kids, and unprosecuted gun crimes, and we have too many guns on the streets.

The NRA has picked the one they want.

Is this quote accurate? "Sixty percent of guns recovered in crimes in Chicago were first sold in other states, many with weaker gun laws"

 

[Bocefish]

Is this quote accurate? "Sixty percent of guns recovered in crimes in Chicago were first sold in other states, many with weaker gun laws"

Chicago also happens to be known as the heroin capital, yet nowhere I know of is heroin legal to sell on the streets. The part of the ad you may have conveniently overlooked is when the dipshit politicians call for "MORE" gun control laws to fix the situation when they don't even enforce the ones currently in place.

 

[justjoinedtopost]

Chicago also happens to be known as the heroin capital, yet nowhere I know of is heroin legal to sell on the streets. The part of the ad you may have conveniently overlooked is when the dipshit politicians call for "MORE" gun control laws to fix the situation when they don't even enforce the ones currently in place.

And I would point out, it appears the NRA does not have clean hands in the non-enforcement of these laws. They are part of the political process. They are neck deep in the mess, and every bit as responsible as dipshit politicians.

I assure you, I did not overlook the more laws part. We have a lot of gun regulations, yet guns are not regulated. I don't want more laws, I would like less. I would like them funded, and vigorously pursued.

The things I mentioned earlier (licensed/registered to possess a gun, background check on all transfers, nationwide), I wouldn't want to see them added to the current laws, but replace them. Clearly identify the legal, hardworking gun owners, simply so that you can drop a prosecutorial megaton of regret on anybody who gets caught possessing one illegally. Make examples.

It is true that the drug war has failed. We will not get heroin out of society. Neither will we ever get illegal guns completely out of society. But the pleasure heroin induces is a huge motivator. I am not sure carrying an illegal weapon would bring enough pleasure to make it quite as enticing.

This view would have scared the hell out of me a decade ago (give or take). That is because I was indoctrinated to associate any hint of limitations on gun ownership with the government seizing all weapons, jackbooted thugs, and gas chambers, which is fucking silly. Not saying you look at it this way.

 

[Bocefish]

This view would have scared the hell out of me a decade ago (give or take). That is because I was indoctrinated to associate any hint of limitations on gun ownership with the government seizing all weapons, jackbooted thugs, and gas chambers, which is fucking silly. Not saying you look at it this way.

It's good to know you have evolved from your former indoctrination that gas chamber threats are indeed silly.

 

[jujoji]

For propaganda perhaps.

It says, there is unemployment, education problems, lack of police (???), drugs, gangs recruiting kids, and unprosecuted gun crimes; therefore, calling for gun control is "the most despicable form of racism".

They are blowing the dog whistle. This is a recruitment tool. The NRA wants to get its African-American membership numbers up, and it is not because they care about racism.

edit: or perhaps they are trying build on racist sentiments that may be present in their organization. Idk.

If you aren't aware there is a significant education problem in the US; a massive lack of funding for police officers (with retired pay the biggest cost); that federal firearms prosecutions are at a fifteen year low; the war on drugs is a failed sham; and unemployment is worse than before the great recession began.

It's more that we as the NRA are trying to get away from the idea of the NRA as a white male only club; so for the last three years they've introduced several commentators and videographers who are variously women, or minorities to (yes) recruit more people to join the fold and get away from the idea that we don't like women or the brown people of the Earth. The idea that lawful gun ownership isn't just a thing for white males, but a right for all Americans to enjoy and exercise.

 

[justjoinedtopost]

If you aren't aware there is a significant education problem in the US; a massive lack of funding for police officers (with retired pay the biggest cost); that federal firearms prosecutions are at a fifteen year low; the war on drugs is a failed sham; and unemployment is worse than before the great recession began.

I can agree with all of this.

It's more that we as the NRA are trying to get away from the idea of the NRA as a white male only club; so for the last three years they've introduced several commentators and videographers who are variously women, or minorities to (yes) recruit more people to join the fold and get away from the idea that we don't like women or the brown people of the Earth. The idea that lawful gun ownership isn't just a thing for white males, but a right for all Americans to enjoy and exercise.

If the NRA decides we need a national database to register every gun in the USA, I will assist in any way I can.



This one makes me laugh. Honestly, was this even necessary?

 

[Behemoth]

I remembered, I forgot to do this!

Oh.

How did you determine what portion of the population was going to be part of this hypothetical insurgency? Because the only guns that would count would be the ones in the hands of an insurgent. Certainly something worth looking at before we start claiming certainty about the outcome.

Well, logically by looking at the segments of the population most likely to engage in such behavior.

Ok. Assuming we are talking about real guns and real bullets, and not their abstract counterparts that don't exist, let's pretend when I said society I meant to say "body of individuals living as members of a community". So let me rephrase what I said...
"Incidentally, driving on roads you don't own is regulated. Possession of firearms, within the body of individuals living as members of our community, which you don't own, should be regulated as well."

It was your interpretation that was nonsense. Strain at the gnat, swallow the camel.

Except, again, the entire concept of 'individuals living as members of our community.' What constitutes a community and why the fuck do they have any right to regulate anything I do?

Your changing words doesn't make it less nonsense, it's JUST as nonsense. There was no straining, it was just nonsense start to finish.

Never mind morals or ethics; what about prudence?

If it is not moral or ethical, it's not prudent.

Then on this we agree. Gun possession does not equal self defense. Which is ironic, considering that self defense is the main reason I am in favor of gun ownership.

No, but given property rights, and the right to self defense, guns are simply a logical extension.

Idk. I'm not particularly thrilled with the status quo. I'd like to believe it's possible. But it just sounds a little too much like a new cam site for my tastes.

Given your open support for regressive authoritarianism, excuse me for being less than inclined to believe your sentiments.

And I would point out, it appears the NRA does not have clean hands in the non-enforcement of these laws. They are part of the political process. They are neck deep in the mess, and every bit as responsible as dipshit politicians.

[Citation Needed]

It is true that the drug war has failed. We will not get heroin out of society. Neither will we ever get illegal guns completely out of society. But the pleasure heroin induces is a huge motivator. I am not sure carrying an illegal weapon would bring enough pleasure to make it quite as enticing.

That's because you're not thinking hard enough, and don't live in an area in which carrying a firearm is both profitable and necessary.

Incidentally, we should decriminalize all drug use.

This view would have scared the hell out of me a decade ago (give or take). That is because I was indoctrinated to associate any hint of limitations on gun ownership with the government seizing all weapons, jackbooted thugs, and gas chambers, which is fucking silly. Not saying you look at it this way.

Well, given the course of history...

 

[justjoinedtopost]

Well, logically by looking at the segments of the population most likely to engage in such behavior.

Which would seem to me to be anti-government insurgents, and not 1% of the US population combined with a rough estimate of guns available.

Except, again, the entire concept of 'individuals living as members of our community.' What constitutes a community and why the fuck do they have any right to regulate anything I do?

Your changing words doesn't make it less nonsense, it's JUST as nonsense. There was no straining, it was just nonsense start to finish.

Don't accuse me of the word games here Chuckles; you are the one who took issue with the word society on the grounds that it was an abstract. Pettiness.

The rights of the individual are important. There is much more to the picture than that.

If it is not moral or ethical, it's not prudent.

It can be moral or ethical, and prudent.
It can be moral or ethical, and not prudent.

No, but given property rights, and the right to self defense, guns are simply a logical extension.

Rights do not exist in a vacuum.
I do not believe you are arguing from a position of logic, but one of ideological rigidity.

Given your open support for regressive authoritarianism, excuse me for being less than inclined to believe your sentiments.

No, I was being sincere. I like the idea. I don't believe it is workable.

[Citation Needed]

[Citation for which part specifically? Besides, aren't citations used by the state to regulate behaviour? A little hypocritical of you to now ask for one.]

That's because you're not thinking hard enough, and don't live in an area in which carrying a firearm is both profitable and necessary.

Incidentally, we should decriminalize all drug use.

Clearly I'm not thinking hard enough, or else I would agree with you, no? Carrying a firearm is not a problem for me. I am not against that.

Full agreement on the drug war. We should be having regular widespread protests calling for its end. But we won't.

Well, given the course of history...

History has examples of tyranny arising in armed populations.

 

[JerryBoBerry]

It's very simple if no one has a gun then no one gets shot, there's no academic study or fact twisting required there. Sure somebody could still kill somone if they really wanted to but no one ever went on a knife rampage through a school, cinema, office block (pick whichever mass shooting you want).

http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/25/world/japan-knife-attack-deaths/index.html

"19 people were killed and 26 injured in a stabbing spree"

 

[Behemoth]

Which would seem to me to be anti-government insurgents, and not 1% of the US population combined with a rough estimate of guns available.

They're not 'anti-government insurgents' until there is an anti-government insurgency. The cross-section of the population most likely to engage though, and yeah, I'd argue its far more than 1%, are going to be the well-armed folks who already dislike the government and upon whom the burden of the state largely falls already.

Don't accuse me of the word games here Chuckles; you are the one who took issue with the word society on the grounds that it was an abstract. Pettiness.

The rights of the individual are important. There is much more to the picture than that.

I'm not accusing you of word games, I'm accusing you of being nonsensical. I didn't just 'take issue,' I pointed out the vacuousness of the nonsense comparison. It was not because it was abstract, it was because it was a non-existent thing that exists only in subjective terms that has no rights and cannot be the victim or owner of a anything. That is not 'pettiness,' that is a core rational rebuttal of the comparison you made. Societies do not have rights. Communities do not have rights. They do not own anything, because they don't exist.

You say the rights of the individual are important, yet also that there is 'much more to the picture than that,' but you never actually explain what that is or how you justify it rationally.

You are not nearly as clever or smart as you think you are, and you are stingy on actually supply any arguments or reasoning for what you say. So, I challenge you, WHAT are the things that are 'much more to the picture?'

It can be moral or ethical, and prudent.
It can be moral or ethical, and not prudent.

I was going to go in on this, but frankly, the only thing that matters is the thing you left out: it cannot be prudent, and yet not be moral and ethical. Which is to say there may be multiple options that are moral and ethical, some of which are prudent and some of which are not, but there are no options that are prudent, that are not also moral and ethical, because by its nature, for something to be prudent, it must be moral and ethical, else it is inherently corrupt from the start and cannot be prudent.

Rights do not exist in a vacuum.
I do not believe you are arguing from a position of logic, but one of ideological rigidity.

What does that even mean, that 'rights don't exist in a vacuum?'

You can say what you believe all you want, but that is not an argument. Which, as I've pointed out is a running issue with you. You posit much but argue little. I have argued logically WHY my position is what it is. It is rigid because it is logical, and you have not bothered to even engage any sort of logical response TO it, which frankly is tantamount to admitting I am, in fact, being logical.

No, I was being sincere. I like the idea. I don't believe it is workable.

If folks are not fit to rule themselves, they're certainly not fit to rule others.

[Citation for which part specifically? Besides, aren't citations used by the state to regulate behaviour? A little hypocritical of you to now ask for one.]

Your attempt at word play just marks you as being insufferable, rather than actually trying to make any sort of argument or point.

Incidentally, the entire thing I quoted. You claimed the NRA somehow has a hand in non-enforcement of some group of laws. Citation needed. What laws are they preventing from being enforced, and how?

Clearly I'm not thinking hard enough, or else I would agree with you, no? Carrying a firearm is not a problem for me. I am not against that.

Full agreement on the drug war. We should be having regular widespread protests calling for its end. But we won't.

No, clearly you're not thinking hard enough because you seem to not understand why folks would carry a gun. You seem to ignore that many folks already carry guns when it is vastly illegal to do so, and there are already stiff penalties.

History has examples of tyranny arising in armed populations.

Which has nothing to do with the fact that restrictions on ownership tend to foreshadow eventual seizure of arms, and further authoritarian policies.

Incidentally, you spend significantly too much time trying to appear clever and not nearly enough actually making an argument.