Go Back   AnandTech Forums > Social > Politics and News

Forums
· Hardware and Technology
· CPUs and Overclocking
· Motherboards
· Video Cards and Graphics
· Memory and Storage
· Power Supplies
· Cases & Cooling
· SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones PCs
· Networking
· Peripherals
· General Hardware
· Highly Technical
· Computer Help
· Home Theater PCs
· Consumer Electronics
· Digital and Video Cameras
· Mobile Devices & Gadgets
· Audio/Video & Home Theater
· Software
· Software for Windows
· All Things Apple
· *nix Software
· Operating Systems
· Programming
· PC Gaming
· Console Gaming
· Distributed Computing
· Security
· Social
· Off Topic
· Politics and News
· Discussion Club
· Love and Relationships
· The Garage
· Health and Fitness
· Merchandise and Shopping
· For Sale/Trade
· Hot Deals with Free Stuff/Contests
· Black Friday 2014
· Forum Issues
· Technical Forum Issues
· Personal Forum Issues
· Suggestion Box
· Moderator Resources
· Moderator Discussions
   

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 01-04-2013, 12:18 PM   #51
xj0hnx
Diamond Member
 
xj0hnx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Texas
Posts: 9,244
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by soundforbjt View Post
They said otherwise. They said most of their guns came from theft of gun owners, very little from "buys". This was from "neighborhood gangs", these guys usually never even venture out of their "hood".
So one gang out of tens of thousands says something, and that makes it a blanket fact? Idiot. Gang members wouldn't lie or anything either, LOL
__________________
www.svc.com

i7 920 | EVGA X58 E758-A1 | HIS HD6870 |12GB Crucial DDR3 | 5.5TB | OS X 10.6.8

Heat
xj0hnx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2013, 12:26 PM   #52
dank69
Lifer
 
dank69's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Corner of FORECLOSURE and BÅNKRUPTCY ST.
Posts: 12,881
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HumblePie View Post
...

Then the second half of the article goes completely down hill again. Appeals to emotion and trying to push off "sensible" restrictions without even a logical argument behind any of it.
I didn't get that impression from the article at all. He basically gives examples of possible legislation that he wouldn't necessarily be opposed to but then explains why they wouldn't accomplish their intended purpose even if they were enacted.
__________________
Nemesis 1: Above your age please. The climate is in fact warmer now . Maybe this erection will cool things down mother earth shes hot.

pcgeek11: IMO: Being gay is not a minority. It is a genetic defect

Idontcare: dank69 is hereby permabanned.
dank69 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2013, 12:28 PM   #53
Olikan
Golden Member
 
Olikan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,826
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by xj0hnx View Post
So one gang out of tens of thousands says something, and that makes it a blanket fact? Idiot. Gang members wouldn't lie or anything either, LOL
indeed, illegal weapons grow on trees...why would they steal? of course is a lie
Olikan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2013, 12:29 PM   #54
xj0hnx
Diamond Member
 
xj0hnx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Texas
Posts: 9,244
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Olikan View Post
yes, illegal weapons grow on trees...why would they rob?
Because it's easier, and less risky to just get someone to buy a gun legally for you than to go break into a house to get one.
__________________
www.svc.com

i7 920 | EVGA X58 E758-A1 | HIS HD6870 |12GB Crucial DDR3 | 5.5TB | OS X 10.6.8

Heat
xj0hnx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2013, 12:31 PM   #55
Moonbeam
Elite Member
 
Moonbeam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 52,545
Default

My gun is sore from all the rubbing of oil on it that I always do when reading gun threads. Give me a break, please. I want to grease my nuclear weapons.
__________________
The above is probably just my usual sarcasm and in no way reflects my real opinion (and,or) may include subtleties of sufficient rarity as to appear to the unsuspecting like total gibberish. It may not be so much a matter that I'm far out, but rather that you have never been anywhere.
Moonbeam is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2013, 12:33 PM   #56
HumblePie
Lifer
 
HumblePie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 11,544
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dank69 View Post
I didn't get that impression from the article at all. He basically gives examples of possible legislation that he wouldn't necessarily be opposed to but then explains why they wouldn't accomplish their intended purpose even if they were enacted.
It's intermixed in there. But from a standpoint of a logical debate, a credible argument would go something like this.

1) In the intro state what you want to do such as, "I want to present what I opinion to be a reasonable X." as well as state in the argument how or why such as, "Here is how I am going to present that argument by using Y."

2) Present your backups in the "meat" of the argument along with explanation of why any fact, study, corollary, or argument ties in with your position from the intro.

3) Present all logical potential counter arguments that would make the most logical sense and discuss those as well. No need to present ALL possible logical arguments as there would too many usually. Just use those that would be the strongest against your claim.

4) In summary, reiterate why you did what you did and emphasize how everything done with your argument worked together.


That is how a good logical presentation piece works. The author had elements of those steps I posted above in his paper, but failed overall.
__________________
Heat: 45-0-0
Political Compass
Humble Pie UK/US Rock Band
Quote:
Originally Posted by highland145;
I can't ever provide facts for my arguments so I just call others trolls instead and feel like I am winning!
HumblePie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2013, 12:35 PM   #57
dank69
Lifer
 
dank69's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Corner of FORECLOSURE and BÅNKRUPTCY ST.
Posts: 12,881
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chucky2 View Post
Right, he wrote the remainder. But he proposed what I quoted. If he wasn't for it (which he says he is, and is proposing), then why even bring it up? Given the context of guns in America, proposing such a thing is an idiotic proposal. I haven't even really read the rest of his article, but I have little doubt I'd be finding other little gems like that.
No, he didn't propose what you quoted. He listed that proposal as an example of a restriction that would not work. The fact that you can't understand this simple paragraph combined with your admitted assumptions is especially delicious. You are a dangerous combination of ignorance and arrogance.



Quote:
No, you think your posts have a point, but really, they are pointless. If they deleted every post of yours from P&N, there'd be very little - if any - impact to the threads they were in. That makes your posts here...pointless.
Once again, you think this way because you can't comprehend most of my posts. I surgically point out terrible logic. You are immune to this because you don't understand logic, so logically explaining something to you is like logically explaining something to an infant.



Quote:
Brilliant deduction! Was it me saying in my first post that I'd just skimmed, or did you figure that one out all on your own? We've got a rocket scientist here folks!

Chuck
The fact that you did skim the article is more embarassing for you than it would be if you didn't. It means you aren't simply ignorant, you are retarded. The guy is arguing against gun control but you think he is actually arguing for it.
__________________
Nemesis 1: Above your age please. The climate is in fact warmer now . Maybe this erection will cool things down mother earth shes hot.

pcgeek11: IMO: Being gay is not a minority. It is a genetic defect

Idontcare: dank69 is hereby permabanned.
dank69 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2013, 12:36 PM   #58
soundforbjt
Diamond Member
 
soundforbjt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: In an office
Posts: 6,846
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by xj0hnx View Post
Because it's easier, and less risky to just get someone to buy a gun legally for you than to go break into a house to get one.
The way these guys worked, there was little to no risk. They knew exactly where the police were in their hood at all times. It was pretty eye-opening to see how efficient and enterprising these "thugs" were. If they put their smarts towards legal enterprises they'd probably do well.
__________________
"Soitenly, if at first you don't succeed, keep on suckin' till you do succeed." - Curly Howard


The Heat 106-0-0
soundforbjt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2013, 01:04 PM   #59
HumblePie
Lifer
 
HumblePie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 11,544
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by soundforbjt View Post
The way these guys worked, there was little to no risk. They knew exactly where the police were in their hood at all times. It was pretty eye-opening to see how efficient and enterprising these "thugs" were. If they put their smarts towards legal enterprises they'd probably do well.
just because a person isn't book smart doesn't make them automatically unintelligent. Basic problem solving ability and to apply solutions found is what makes a person reasonably intelligent.
__________________
Heat: 45-0-0
Political Compass
Humble Pie UK/US Rock Band
Quote:
Originally Posted by highland145;
I can't ever provide facts for my arguments so I just call others trolls instead and feel like I am winning!
HumblePie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2013, 01:16 PM   #60
chucky2
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Chicagoland, IL USA
Posts: 7,753
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dank69 View Post
No, he didn't propose what you quoted. He listed that proposal as an example of a restriction that would not work. The fact that you can't understand this simple paragraph combined with your admitted assumptions is especially delicious. You are a dangerous combination of ignorance and arrogance.
No, he listed it, said he was in favor of it, and then says doing so wouldn't stop bad people from acquiring guns, and that sane gun owners should have access to guns. That doesn't mean he's not in favor of such an idiotic proposal. He specifically said he was. He just supports gun owners in being able to acquire weapons, a meaningless statement really given what he's talking about, because such a law, and the supports of such a law, would still frame the law in 'well, sane gun owners can pass all these tests, whammo, look, my paragraph was accurate just like dumbF69 suggested!'. Sorry, that's not what he meant there. He's doublespeaking, and you with your "logic" can't seem to comprehend that. How "delicious".

Quote:
Once again, you think this way because you can't comprehend most of my posts. I surgically point out terrible logic. You are immune to this because you don't understand logic, so logically explaining something to you is like logically explaining something to an infant.
No, I get that's your schtick. What you are failing to realize is not that I can't comprehend it, but that you pointing out things you think are terrible logic a.) doesn't make what you are pointing out terrible logic and/or b.) doesn't make your pointing out anymore logical or insightful than what you think you're shooting down. See here: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/delusions+of+grandeur

Quote:
The fact that you did skim the article is more embarassing for you than it would be if you didn't. It means you aren't simply ignorant, you are retarded. The guy is arguing against gun control but you think he is actually arguing for it.
Gezus, you are this incredibly dumb?!?! Dipsh1t69, I skimmed the wall o txt because I didn't feel like reading through that at that time of night, nothing more. How "logical" of you to deduce my actual thoughts! As far as arguing against gun control, if that's true (still haven't read the article, OMG HOW IGNORANT OF ME LOL), he both started off and (almost) finished in the strangest of manners if he was taking that approach.

Please, up your game here. Another posting like your typical posting puts you on ignore with sanduseless.

Chuck
__________________
Tyan = No Support
Chuck's K6-3+
chucky2 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2013, 01:17 PM   #61
dank69
Lifer
 
dank69's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Corner of FORECLOSURE and BÅNKRUPTCY ST.
Posts: 12,881
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HumblePie View Post
It's intermixed in there. But from a standpoint of a logical debate, a credible argument would go something like this.

1) In the intro state what you want to do such as, "I want to present what I opinion to be a reasonable X." as well as state in the argument how or why such as, "Here is how I am going to present that argument by using Y."

2) Present your backups in the "meat" of the argument along with explanation of why any fact, study, corollary, or argument ties in with your position from the intro.

3) Present all logical potential counter arguments that would make the most logical sense and discuss those as well. No need to present ALL possible logical arguments as there would too many usually. Just use those that would be the strongest against your claim.

4) In summary, reiterate why you did what you did and emphasize how everything done with your argument worked together.


That is how a good logical presentation piece works. The author had elements of those steps I posted above in his paper, but failed overall.
I agree the structure is confusing. I wasn't sure exactly what point he was trying to make until I had read the whole thing. But the point is right there clearly in the title: Argument Against Gun Control.
__________________
Nemesis 1: Above your age please. The climate is in fact warmer now . Maybe this erection will cool things down mother earth shes hot.

pcgeek11: IMO: Being gay is not a minority. It is a genetic defect

Idontcare: dank69 is hereby permabanned.
dank69 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2013, 01:31 PM   #62
Olikan
Golden Member
 
Olikan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,826
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by xj0hnx View Post
Because it's easier, and less risky to just get someone to buy a gun legally for you than to go break into a house to get one.
unless the american law permits you to sell your guns to someone, like you say...

if not, well it's still a steal
Olikan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2013, 01:33 PM   #63
dank69
Lifer
 
dank69's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Corner of FORECLOSURE and BÅNKRUPTCY ST.
Posts: 12,881
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chucky2 View Post
No, he listed it, said he was in favor of it, and then says doing so wouldn't stop bad people from acquiring guns, and that sane gun owners should have access to guns. That doesn't mean he's not in favor of such an idiotic proposal. He specifically said he was. He just supports gun owners in being able to acquire weapons, a meaningless statement really given what he's talking about, because such a law, and the supports of such a law, would still frame the law in 'well, sane gun owners can pass all these tests, whammo, look, my paragraph was accurate just like dumbF69 suggested!'. Sorry, that's not what he meant there. He's doublespeaking, and you with your "logic" can't seem to comprehend that. How "delicious".
He is in favor of it because some of the "training" required to legally own a gun is laughable. Head over to OT and check out Jeebus' first hand experience if you don't believe me. He however uses that example to specifically state that the change will not keep guns out of the hands of criminals. The most delicious part of your ranting in this thread is that you are the exact character on the right that he is poking fun of. The type that over-reacts to any proposed legislation which is just as bad as the ones on the left that over-react to events such as Sandy Hook by looking for assault weapon bans and the like. Claiming the author is using double speak just reinforces my claim that you have no idea what you are talking about.



Quote:
No, I get that's your schtick. What you are failing to realize is not that I can't comprehend it, but that you pointing out things you think are terrible logic a.) doesn't make what you are pointing out terrible logic and/or b.) doesn't make your pointing out anymore logical or insightful than what you think you're shooting down. See here: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/delusions+of+grandeur
I point out bad logic simply for educational purposes. Maybe someday with my help you will be able to piece together a reasonable argument. How's that for delusions of Grandeur? I know I am not that powerful.



Quote:
Gezus, you are this incredibly dumb?!?! Dipsh1t69, I skimmed the wall o txt because I didn't feel like reading through that at that time of night, nothing more. How "logical" of you to deduce my actual thoughts! As far as arguing against gun control, if that's true (still haven't read the article, OMG HOW IGNORANT OF ME LOL), he both started off and (almost) finished in the strangest of manners if he was taking that approach.

Please, up your game here. Another posting like your typical posting puts you on ignore with sanduseless.

Chuck
Oh how clever, altering my name. What a poet you are. Let me try: Go ahead fucky2, put me on ignore, the mental equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming LALALALA! Except you don't even have the willpower to ignore posts with the power of your own mind, you need software to do it. Grow a spine, fucky2.
__________________
Nemesis 1: Above your age please. The climate is in fact warmer now . Maybe this erection will cool things down mother earth shes hot.

pcgeek11: IMO: Being gay is not a minority. It is a genetic defect

Idontcare: dank69 is hereby permabanned.
dank69 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2013, 01:39 PM   #64
irishScott
Lifer
 
irishScott's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Delaware
Posts: 20,489
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chucky2 View Post
No, he listed it, said he was in favor of it, and then says doing so wouldn't stop bad people from acquiring guns, and that sane gun owners should have access to guns. That doesn't mean he's not in favor of such an idiotic proposal. He specifically said he was. He just supports gun owners in being able to acquire weapons, a meaningless statement really given what he's talking about, because such a law, and the supports of such a law, would still frame the law in 'well, sane gun owners can pass all these tests, whammo, look, my paragraph was accurate just like dumbF69 suggested!'. Sorry, that's not what he meant there. He's doublespeaking, and you with your "logic" can't seem to comprehend that. How "delicious".



No, I get that's your schtick. What you are failing to realize is not that I can't comprehend it, but that you pointing out things you think are terrible logic a.) doesn't make what you are pointing out terrible logic and/or b.) doesn't make your pointing out anymore logical or insightful than what you think you're shooting down. See here: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/delusions+of+grandeur



Gezus, you are this incredibly dumb?!?! Dipsh1t69, I skimmed the wall o txt because I didn't feel like reading through that at that time of night, nothing more. How "logical" of you to deduce my actual thoughts! As far as arguing against gun control, if that's true (still haven't read the article, OMG HOW IGNORANT OF ME LOL), he both started off and (almost) finished in the strangest of manners if he was taking that approach.

Please, up your game here. Another posting like your typical posting puts you on ignore with sanduseless.

Chuck

Alright genius: I'm in favor of a perfect world, and am in favor of legislation towards that end. However, I realize that a perfect world is impossible to create therefore such legislation would be useless overall.

ZOMG I just "doublespoke"! (which doesn't mean what you think it means) God that completely invalidates everything I just said!

Oh wait.. no it doesn't.

You were one of those kids who skated by high school English weren't you? Hint: If you want to critique something and have that critique respected, you have to read the whole thing. Otherwise your critique typically ends up as stupid as your reading strategy. We don't give a shit about your time. If you don't have the time to at least read the whole thing, then you simply cannot critique the article and expect us to see more than a pile of shit.

You're trying to have your cake and eat it too, but as a matter of physics you can't. So everyone's laughing at you and you're apparently getting off on it. Enjoy!
irishScott is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2013, 01:45 PM   #65
irishScott
Lifer
 
irishScott's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Delaware
Posts: 20,489
Default

And as one of the most ardently pro-gun people on this forum, I'd like to state that this is one of the most coherent, thought-out, unbiased and overall best pro-gun arguments I've ever read.

The fact that it doesn't play to the partisan propaganda the masses (and many on this forum) are so cathartically enamored with doesn't change that. In fact, we desperately need more articles like it.
irishScott is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2013, 01:45 PM   #66
HumblePie
Lifer
 
HumblePie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 11,544
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dank69 View Post
I agree the structure is confusing. I wasn't sure exactly what point he was trying to make until I had read the whole thing. But the point is right there clearly in the title: Argument Against Gun Control.
That's the title but in the article he makes assertions for "sensible" gun control. Which is what you don't want to try to do with an article title like he has.

for example, this is a very bad argument to use for his overall premise.

Quote:
The amendment seems to have been written to allow the states to check the power of the federal government by maintaining their militias. Given the changes that have occurred in our military, and even in our politics, the idea that a few pistols and an AR 15 in every home constitutes a necessary bulwark against totalitarianism is fairly ridiculous. If you believe that the armed forces of the United States might one day come for you—and you think your cache of small arms will suffice to defend you if they do—I’ve got a black helicopter to sell you.
As that is a bad talking point from gun control advocates. Do I personally think as a single person that I am going to stop the military might of the USA? Fuck no. Nor does any reasonably sane person. However, against 300 million armed Americans, how do you think the military is going to fare even assuming none of the military would side with the public? Unless the military resorts to WMD such as nuclear bombs, they wouldn't win against the combined might of every armed American citizen. Even with if the military resorted to that, it wouldn't be a win as it would be nothing but a scorched earth campaign and suicide for them. Nor do I have any grand delusions that such a confrontation would ever happen on such a scale. Nor would I want something like that to ever happen.
__________________
Heat: 45-0-0
Political Compass
Humble Pie UK/US Rock Band
Quote:
Originally Posted by highland145;
I can't ever provide facts for my arguments so I just call others trolls instead and feel like I am winning!

Last edited by HumblePie; 01-04-2013 at 01:51 PM.
HumblePie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2013, 01:50 PM   #67
dank69
Lifer
 
dank69's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Corner of FORECLOSURE and BÅNKRUPTCY ST.
Posts: 12,881
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HumblePie View Post
That's the title but in the article he makes assertions for "sensible" gun control. Which is what you don't want to try to do with an article title like he has.
He does believe we need sensible gun control but goes on to explain that sensible gun control is very difficult to acheive, and he technically did not "try," as you put it. He pointed out that the simplistic proposals being put forth currently are examples of nonsensical gun control.
__________________
Nemesis 1: Above your age please. The climate is in fact warmer now . Maybe this erection will cool things down mother earth shes hot.

pcgeek11: IMO: Being gay is not a minority. It is a genetic defect

Idontcare: dank69 is hereby permabanned.
dank69 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2013, 01:55 PM   #68
chucky2
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Chicagoland, IL USA
Posts: 7,753
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dank69 View Post
He is in favor of it because some of the "training" required to legally own a gun is laughable. Head over to OT and check out Jeebus' first hand experience if you don't believe me. He however uses that example to specifically state that the change will not keep guns out of the hands of criminals. The most delicious part of your ranting in this thread is that you are the exact character on the right that he is poking fun of. The type that over-reacts to any proposed legislation which is just as bad as the ones on the left that over-react to events such as Sandy Hook by looking for assault weapon bans and the like. Claiming the author is using double speak just reinforces my claim that you have no idea what you are talking about.

I point out bad logic simply for educational purposes. Maybe someday with my help you will be able to piece together a reasonable argument. How's that for delusions of Grandeur? I know I am not that powerful.

Oh how clever, altering my name. What a poet you are. Let me try: Go ahead fucky2, put me on ignore, the mental equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming LALALALA! Except you don't even have the willpower to ignore posts with the power of your own mind, you need software to do it. Grow a spine, fucky2.
Quote:
Originally Posted by irishScott View Post
Alright genius: I'm in favor of a perfect world, and am in favor of legislation towards that end. However, I realize that a perfect world is impossible to create therefore such legislation would be useless overall.

ZOMG I just "doublespoke"! (which doesn't mean what you think it means) God that completely invalidates everything I just said!

Oh wait.. no it doesn't.

You were one of those kids who skated by high school English weren't you? Hint: If you want to critique something and have that critique respected, you have to read the whole thing. Otherwise your critique typically ends up as stupid as your reading strategy. We don't give a shit about your time. If you don't have the time to at least read the whole thing, then you simply cannot critique the article and expect us to see more than a pile of shit.

You're trying to have your cake and eat it too, but as a matter of physics you can't. So everyone's laughing at you and you're apparently getting off on it. Enjoy!
Quote:
Originally Posted by irishScott View Post
And as one of the most ardently pro-gun people on this forum, I'd like to state that this is one of the most coherent, thought-out, unbiased and overall best pro-gun arguments I've ever read.

The fact that it doesn't play to the partisan propaganda the masses (and many on this forum) are so cathartically enamored with doesn't change that. In fact, we desperately need more articles like it.
I just read the article. He wrote a blog telling us what is already known by any sane non-gungrabbing wacko. What I said still stands. If he took out his 'I support making it like getting an airplance license' then I'd change my response to either not posting (why bother?), or, a 'Skimmed the article, no sh1t'.

Let me know when he updates his blog removing the pilot license bit, and I'll edit my first post.
__________________
Tyan = No Support
Chuck's K6-3+

Last edited by chucky2; 01-04-2013 at 01:58 PM.
chucky2 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2013, 01:57 PM   #69
HumblePie
Lifer
 
HumblePie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 11,544
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dank69 View Post
He does believe we need sensible gun control but goes on to explain that sensible gun control is very difficult to acheive, and he technically did not "try," as you put it. He pointed out that the simplistic proposals being put forth currently are examples of nonsensical gun control.
His article title is that he is going to argue against gun control. Then goes into the intro and later in the argument that he believes in "sensible" gun control laws. This is a cognitive dissonance argument right there. He makes some good points for his original argument, then really goes stupid with a few counter argument points that he presents very badly. Just pointing out that this makes for a bad overall article for the point he is trying to get across.
__________________
Heat: 45-0-0
Political Compass
Humble Pie UK/US Rock Band
Quote:
Originally Posted by highland145;
I can't ever provide facts for my arguments so I just call others trolls instead and feel like I am winning!
HumblePie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2013, 01:58 PM   #70
monovillage
Diamond Member
 
monovillage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: N. California
Posts: 8,445
Default

Since owning a firearm and voting are both Constitutionally protected Rights in this country, my views on limits and restrictions to both of those Rights are very consistent.

1.Showing an identification
2.Small fee for background check
3.No felons, crazies or the seriously mentally impaired.

If you would recommend a restriction on a firearm then that same restriction can and should apply to voting.
monovillage is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2013, 02:04 PM   #71
irishScott
Lifer
 
irishScott's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Delaware
Posts: 20,489
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HumblePie View Post
That's the title but in the article he makes assertions for "sensible" gun control. Which is what you don't want to try to do with an article title like he has.

for example, this is a very bad argument to use for his overall premise.



As that is a bad talking point from gun control advocates. Do I personally think as a single person that I am going to stop the military might of the USA? Fuck no. Nor does any reasonably sane person. However, against 300 million armed Americans, how do you think the military is going to fare even assuming none of the military would side with the public? Unless the military resorts to WMD such as nuclear bombs, they wouldn't win against the combined might of every armed American citizen. Even with if the military resorted to that, it wouldn't be a win as it would be nothing but a scorched earth campaign and suicide for them. Nor do I have any grand delusions that such a confrontation would ever happen on such a scale. Nor would I want something like that to ever happen.
I think he could have been a little more clear, but I don't think he's bashing the idea of an armed revolution, just people who buy guns explicitly for such purposes. I know if I walk into a gun store and hear some guy talking about how he's prepping for the government takeover coming in a few years, I'm likely going to drift to the other side of the gun store until he leaves.

Likewise he mentions changes in the military and "even our politics" as reasons why an armed revolution would be unnecessary, and for the moment I agree. Our military is an all volunteer force who swore an oath to defend the Constitution (officers) and to obey the lawful orders of their superiors (enlisted). Likewise our politics are so dependent on public opinion it isn't funny. The only way we could realistically slip back into tyranny is by electing one, in which case we kinda deserve it.

Now don't get me wrong I still believe an armed populace is a much needed emergency valve should such an event take place in a century or two, but when debating present policy, that is "how do we solve the problems we have now?" making such a long term appeal is of hollow value to most. The "armed populace as a check against tyranny" argument is vestigial to the most practical arguments and should be treated as such IMO.
irishScott is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2013, 02:05 PM   #72
ivwshane
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 7,344
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by monovillage View Post
Since owning a firearm and voting are both Constitutionally protected Rights in this country, my views on limits and restrictions to both of those Rights are very consistent.

1.Showing an identification
2.Small fee for background check
3.No felons, crazies or the seriously mentally impaired.

If you would recommend a restriction on a firearm then that same restriction can and should apply to voting.

That's all well and good but there are additional constitutional amendments with regards to voting that don't apply to guns, the poll tax being one of them.

So that can affect 1 and does affect #2. So do you stand by your comment?
__________________
System Specs
ivwshane is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2013, 02:07 PM   #73
irishScott
Lifer
 
irishScott's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Delaware
Posts: 20,489
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by monovillage View Post
Since owning a firearm and voting are both Constitutionally protected Rights in this country, my views on limits and restrictions to both of those Rights are very consistent.

1.Showing an identification
2.Small fee for background check
3.No felons, crazies or the seriously mentally impaired.

If you would recommend a restriction on a firearm then that same restriction can and should apply to voting.
And I would love a world where everyone was required to take a 4 weeks of free, government provided firearms training in return for owning as many guns as you want and carrying them in any public location in any manner; as well as a 30 question test on the candidates and their political views to vote in an election, with a 90% required to pass.

But it's hard to hold people to such high standards when the people are fat and lazy. Seriously, there are so many fat gun owners out there it isn't funny.
irishScott is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2013, 02:10 PM   #74
ivwshane
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 7,344
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by irishScott View Post
I think he could have been a little more clear, but I don't think he's bashing the idea of an armed revolution, just people who buy guns explicitly for such purposes. I know if I walk into a gun store and hear some guy talking about how he's prepping for the government takeover coming in a few years, I'm likely going to drift to the other side of the gun store until he leaves.

Likewise he mentions changes in the military and "even our politics" as reasons why an armed revolution would be unnecessary, and for the moment I agree. Our military is an all volunteer force who swore an oath to defend the Constitution (officers) and to obey the lawful orders of their superiors (enlisted). Likewise our politics are so dependent on public opinion it isn't funny. The only way we could realistically slip back into tyranny is by electing one, in which case we kinda deserve it.

Now don't get me wrong I still believe an armed populace is a much needed emergency valve should such an event take place in a century or two, but when debating present policy, that is "how do we solve the problems we have now?" making such a long term appeal is of hollow value to most. The "armed populace as a check against tyranny" argument is vestigial to the most practical arguments and should be treated as such IMO.
Exactly. The tyranny argument is an appeal to emotions and is about as thoughtful as getting rid of all guns as some may want.


But hey, emotions aren't logical so it's expected.
__________________
System Specs
ivwshane is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2013, 02:11 PM   #75
HumblePie
Lifer
 
HumblePie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 11,544
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by irishScott View Post
I think he could have been a little more clear, but I don't think he's bashing the idea of an armed revolution, just people who buy guns explicitly for such purposes. I know if I walk into a gun store and hear some guy talking about how he's prepping for the government takeover coming in a few years, I'm likely going to drift to the other side of the gun store until he leaves.

Likewise he mentions changes in the military and "even our politics" as reasons why an armed revolution would be unnecessary, and for the moment I agree. Our military is an all volunteer force who swore an oath to defend the Constitution (officers) and to obey the lawful orders of their superiors (enlisted). Likewise our politics are so dependent on public opinion it isn't funny. The only way we could realistically slip back into tyranny is by electing one, in which case we kinda deserve it.

Now don't get me wrong I still believe an armed populace is a much needed emergency valve should such an event take place in a century or two, but when debating present policy, that is "how do we solve the problems we have now?" making such a long term appeal is of hollow value to most. The "armed populace as a check against tyranny" argument is vestigial to the most practical arguments and should be treated as such IMO.
If your argument is based upon a national federal level, then yep you are correct. But armed population is not for only a national defense, but can be used for a local one as well. Battle Of Athens comes to mind. Tyranny of the government or authority doesn't have to be on a wide scale national level.

Now I do agree with you that if I was at a gun counter and a person buying a gun next to me professes the reason for his purchase is to defend himself against the government, I might move away as well. Although that is what the Constitutional 2nd amendment is ultimately for, that should not be the overriding reason for all citizens to go out and buy a gun for. I certainly do not. That's like a person looking for a fight.

But back to the argument I was making, people counter the 2nd amendment purpose of a check against tyranny by always using a national level check. That idea is laughable to just about everyone. But as the Battle of Athens shows, it is not a defense against a government representative on a national scale only. Its when the cops bust down your door for some unknown illegal reason (which still happens to this day) you should be able to defend yourself against such an incursion.
__________________
Heat: 45-0-0
Political Compass
Humble Pie UK/US Rock Band
Quote:
Originally Posted by highland145;
I can't ever provide facts for my arguments so I just call others trolls instead and feel like I am winning!
HumblePie is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

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

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

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:18 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.