Sam Harris: A Liberal's Argument Against Gun Control

[monovillage]

Originally Posted by chucky2

US Gov orders such a thing. Military says FU. No attack happens. Logic.

There's a reason "fragging" made it into the dictionary.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fragging

[HumblePie]

Originally Posted by dank69

Okay, time scale. US government goes into bunker and nukes whole country. Every square inch. Gave over one day. How is that for time scale? Oh, they want to be able to come out of their bunker sooner? Ok then chem or biological warfare. Gave over one week. What are you going to do? Shoot the virii?

There isn't a chemical or bio weapon that can kill off the entire USA in a week. Despite your Hollywood movie fears.

As for nukes, it would take the launch of every nuke to possibly come close to doing so. In that event, everyone, including the government, would be dead. That is a massive non sequitur as that is not the government winning against a revolt.

And even in doing such genocide actions, who is the government going to rule over after when everyone is dead? That's not winning by any definition of the word.

[HumblePie]

Originally Posted by ivwshane

Lol wut?

I said every armed revolt in history, which by definition is the people under rule of a government that fights back against that government, has won. I was countered with the argument that "The South won the civil war?"

Which is an implication that the south was the ones being ruled and the south was the ones that revolted. That isn't the case. The South was in control of the government and were the ones passing oppressive laws that the north and slaves revolted against. Hence why I said that by using that example only further proves my argument.

[ivwshane]

Originally Posted by monovillage

Bullshit.

I stand by my opinion that a small fee is legal. This is a debate that is raging in my State, the Tea Party members are claiming that any government fee is a tax and Democrats are claiming that some fees are allowable and not taxes, but fees for services.
I really don't think the 24th Amendment directly addressed it.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion, thankfully the courts' opinion actually carries weight unlike your opinion and they disagree with you.

[ivwshane]

Originally Posted by HumblePie

I said every armed revolt in history, which by definition is the people under rule of a government that fights back against that government, has won. I was countered with the argument that "The South won the civil war?"

Which is an implication that the south was the ones being ruled and the south was the ones that revolted. That isn't the case. The South was in control of the government and were the ones passing oppressive laws that the north and slaves revolted against. Hence why I said that by using that example only further proves my argument.

Yeah I heard your spin which is why I posted shays rebellion which matches your definition perfectly and that you conveniently ignored.

[monovillage]

Originally Posted by ivwshane

You are certainly entitled to your opinion, thankfully the courts' opinion actually carries weight unlike your opinion and they disagree with you.

If you are right then i'd have to withdraw my support for any type of fee or firearm tax to own a firearm. Maybe it can be taken up with the court.

[HumblePie]

Originally Posted by ivwshane

Yeah I heard your spin which is why I posted shays rebellion which matches your definition perfectly and that you conveniently ignored.

Rebellion and revolt aren't the same. A rebellion can become a revolt though. Nor did I ever say every armed resistance to a government has been successful. There is a massive difference. And this time is one of scale of size.

Is what I'm saying a bit semantics? Yes and purposefully. When a revolt, which by definition is fighting against one's OWN government, is done so by the significant proportion of the population that is also armed, a government overturn has always happened. Always. I'm not talking little tiny rebellion stirring done by small bits and pieces of a population of a given governance. A revolt implies revolution when is by definition the overturning of a government. And every time in history that a large section of the armed populace being governed has fought back they have always won.

[ivwshane]

Originally Posted by HumblePie

Rebellion and revolt aren't the same. A rebellion can become a revolt though. Nor did I ever say every armed resistance to a government has been successful. There is a massive difference. And this time is one of scale of size.

Lol

Where would you like to move the goal posts next?



Me thinks you don't know what a revolt is:
http://m.dictionary.com/d/?q=revolt&o=0&l=dir


But please continue to make a fool of yourself.

[HumblePie]

Originally Posted by ivwshane

Lol

Me thinks you don't know what a revolt is:
http://m.dictionary.com/d/?q=revolt&o=0&l=dir


But please continue to make a fool of yourself.

No, I know what revolt means and I have explained it in the edit above. It's short hand i the terms I'm using for revolution. An armed rebellion isn't a revolution. With a large enough amount of the populace fighting it certainly can be though. The term of one is a subset of another.

[ivwshane]

I think someone should eat their pie right about now.

[HumblePie]

Originally Posted by ivwshane

I think someone should eat their pie right about now.

Because you've been owned? Name one instance where a significant proportion of a governed population revolted against their government while armed and didn't eventually win against that government.

When the government is out manned by armed citizens it can not win. Ever. And has never. That is the whole point I was trying to make. You keep trying to weasel outlandish and false equivalent fallacies against that point, but that hasn't worked yet.

That was the whole point to the 2nd amendment. The writers of the Constitution KNEW that point I was trying to make and declared it in writing. They just went through that very thing with the American revolution and realize that there is zero way a government can win against a fight against a significant portion of its armed populace.

[ivwshane]

Originally Posted by HumblePie

Because you've been owned? Name one instance where a significant proportion of a governed population revolted against their government while armed and didn't eventually win against that government.

When the government is out manned by armed citizens it can not win. Ever. And has never. That is the whole point I was trying to make. You keep trying to weasel outlandish and false equivalent fallacies against that point, but that hasn't worked yet.

That was the whole point to the 2nd amendment. The writers of the Constitution KNEW that point I was trying to make and declared it in writing. They just went through that very thing with the American revolution and realize that there is zero way a government can win against a fight against a significant portion of its armed populace.

You should narrow your definition even more to make your point. But let me see if I understand you correctly, what you are saying is that when a large proportion of a country rebels that they win? But that the civil war, that meets that criteria, doesn't count? And you mean to tell me that when the majority of a country want something they will get it? Crazy!

When is this revolt going to happen in the US? Sometime in the next 10 years? 20? 50? 100?

It's not going to happen which is why any pro gun argument that bases it's claims of overthrowing a tyrannical government are purely hyperbole and at the very least only appeal to emotional idiots like yourself who are scared of a boogeyman.

A tyrannical government will come from people like you, carrying a gun while holding a flag (or wearing a flag pin). I'm worried about idiots like you voting for people who will turn your fears into reality.

If you scared of government then look in the mirror.

[cwjerome]

Originally Posted by ivwshane

You should narrow your definition even more to make your point. But let me see if I understand you correctly, what you are saying is that when a large proportion of a country rebels that they win? But that the civil war, that meets that criteria, doesn't count? And you mean to tell me that when the majority of a country want something they will get it? Crazy!

When is this revolt going to happen in the US? Sometime in the next 10 years? 20? 50? 100?

It's not going to happen which is why any pro gun argument that bases it's claims of overthrowing a tyrannical government are purely hyperbole and at the very least only appeal to emotional idiots like yourself who are scared of a boogeyman.

A tyrannical government will come from people like you, carrying a gun while holding a flag (or wearing a flag pin). I'm worried about idiots like you voting for people who will turn your fears into reality.

If you scared of government then look in the mirror.

What the...? Please tell me what the main purpose of the 2nd Amendment is (and if you agree with it. please).

[ivwshane]

Originally Posted by cwjerome

What the...? Please tell me what the main purpose of the 2nd Amendment is (and if you agree with it. please).

My opinion on the 2nd amendment is irrelevant. The courts decide its meaning. My thinking is that if we have an issue we should address it, if the solution is so good and everyone agrees with it (never going to happen), if need be the constitution can be changed. My approach isn't an all or nothing but rather to look at what we have, what are the issues, and how can we better the situation with the least amount of change to our current rights. That's why none of my solutions have said a single word about banning anything.

[cwjerome]

Originally Posted by ivwshane

My opinion on the 2nd amendment is irrelevant.

If you don't think your opinion matters then so be it. Some people think their beliefs do matter, and some people think the reasoning behind what's in the Constitution matters as well.

The courts decide its meaning. My thinking is that if we have an issue we should address it, if the solution is so good and everyone agrees with it (never going to happen), if need be the constitution can be changed. My approach isn't an all or nothing but rather to look at what we have, what are the issues, and how can we better the situation with the least amount of change to our current rights. That's why none of my solutions have said a single word about banning anything.

That's fine, but I'll I've heard you mention was a vague reference to more/better education. You say your approach is "to look at what we have, what are the issues, and how can we better the situation with the least amount of change to our current rights," but so far your approach seems to be to attack and disparage some of the original intent behind the 2nd Amendment. Why don't you try using your "approach" and build a argument if you think the discourse is so terrible?

[HumblePie]

Originally Posted by ivwshane

You should narrow your definition even more to make your point. But let me see if I understand you correctly, what you are saying is that when a large proportion of a country rebels that they win? But that the civil war, that meets that criteria, doesn't count? And you mean to tell me that when the majority of a country want something they will get it? Crazy!

When is this revolt going to happen in the US? Sometime in the next 10 years? 20? 50? 100?

It's not going to happen which is why any pro gun argument that bases it's claims of overthrowing a tyrannical government are purely hyperbole and at the very least only appeal to emotional idiots like yourself who are scared of a boogeyman.

A tyrannical government will come from people like you, carrying a gun while holding a flag (or wearing a flag pin). I'm worried about idiots like you voting for people who will turn your fears into reality.

If you scared of government then look in the mirror.

We were talking in the fantasy realm of a large scale armed revolt in America ever happening. I making a point that even if the big bad military of America were to all fight back against the armed citizens of the country, they would eventually lose. It has ALWAYS happened on that scale. That is a 100% historical fact. That was the whole premise of that entire line of argument there bud. Go back and re-read it all if you managed to selectively forgot that.

I said that event, especially in my lifetime, is so remote a possibility as to be comical. However, I did point out that the 2nd amendment is not just there to protect against a large national revolt like that being needed. It is there for smaller governments as well. I pointed at the Battle of Athens as a PRIME example. Because sometimes people get into power and authority and there is no other way to oust them regardless if it's the major of a town or the president of the USA. The fact remains that if a large part of the people revolt against the current people in authority in armed rebellion, there is nothing any government is going to do to win that scenario. Not now and not ever. That was the argument I presented against idiots that continue to bring up that the military has scary things lie bombs, planes, and tanks. Sure the military if used in that capacity would reap massive casualties, but in the end they would lose.

[Howard]

Originally Posted by monovillage

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.

What about the moderately mentally impaired?

[JulesMaximus]

How do we really know that he's a liberal?

[JulesMaximus]

Originally Posted by cwjerome

If you don't think your opinion matters then so be it. Some people think their beliefs do matter, and some people think the reasoning behind what's in the Constitution matters as well.

What if they only represent 49% of the population?

[cwjerome]

Originally Posted by JulesMaximus

What if they only represent 49% of the population?

Then it sucks for them.

[monovillage]

Originally Posted by Howard

What about the moderately mentally impaired?

No way, I still think I should be able to buy a firearm.