I really had to bite my tongue

[Greenman]

Car registration is the first step toward confiscating cars, if the government chooses to do so. Some people drive around yelling political things out their window as a matter of principle, because the 1st amendment of the Constitution allows them to do so, and the thought of logic or reason causing them to restrict their behavior is something they feel should be fought against.

I feel that since the above follows the logical structure of your argument it provides a thoughtful argument for the counter-point by what is called Reductio ad absurdum.

I am not making fun of you, as I can see precisely where you are coming from and know you to be an intelligent person, I just ask that you reflect on the lack of logical cogency that seems present in your existing line of argument. Alternatively perhaps you can reconstruct your thoughts in a way that do not rely on the tenuous assumptions needed to make the logical leaps that you have.

Alternatively, if you were not presenting your own views but simply providing the best possible defense of a known-false stance: I applaud your efforts.

The difference being that cars and driving aren't specifically mentioned in the constitution. Thats pretty much the pivotal point. You could substitute "goldfish" for "arms" and end up at the same place you did with cars.

 

[Ruptga]

The simple answer is that where emotion is, reason isn't. Those people probably feel threatened by the big government bogeyman, so anything anyone ever says about big government is taken as absolute truth, because you just never know what those bastards will go after next. I see it all the time, both in my family and online.

A common exchange with an otherwise intelligent person goes something like
A: X sucks, durka durr.
B: But we need at least some X because 1, 2, 3.
A: That's [heresy].
/conversation
The heresy in question can be liberalism, conservatism, communism, socialism, religious heresy, statism, fascism, or any other -ism that is convenient for terminating thought processes. Unless you know the person well and are tired of their shit it is almost never worth trying to point out the obvious holes in their logic, it's just going to end with them thinking you're a heretic and you thinking they're a dumbass.

 

[Fenixgoon]

Just make them illegal, except long guns, and many will roll over instead of spending 15 years in jail for possession.

heller vs DC would disagree with that.

the supreme court upheld that firearms "in common use" are legal to own - DC had a handgun ban at the time.

handguns are ubiquitous, and the AR15 is one of the top selling long rifles, period. so both are in common use, and therefore cannot be banned.


also, it is perfectly legal to manufacture your own firearm - people start with 80% lowers and go from there. they are un-serialized, and therefore, untrackable.

 

[Moonbeam]

Why the automatic assumption that it's the government their concerned with? Many people are concerned about a breakdown in civil order. Those things do happen from time to time, and when the veneer of civilization is stripped away, whats left is dangerous and ugly. Look at the Rodney King riots, the looting that goes on after every natural disaster, hell just look at the drunken fools leaving a football game. It seems only prudent to have a firearm and a couple thousand rounds of ammo at home.

Jesus, carrying all that shit, how are you going to carry the loot?

 

[Dr. Zaus]

The difference being that cars and driving aren't specifically mentioned in the constitution. Thats pretty much the pivotal point. You could substitute "goldfish" for "arms" and end up at the same place you did with cars.

Yes because the constitution speaks to cars, the guns these guys are talking about, and gold-fish equally: Not at all.

Jesus, carrying all that shit, how are you going to carry the loot?

I see precisely what you did there.

 

[WelshBloke]

The difference being that cars and driving aren't specifically mentioned in the constitution.

Which sort of underlines the point that using an ancient text that was written before a lot of common things were invented as an unmoving basis for modern laws is an "interesting" experiment.

 

[highland145]

heller vs DC would disagree with that.

the supreme court upheld that firearms "in common use" are legal to own - DC had a handgun ban at the time.

handguns are ubiquitous, and the AR15 is one of the top selling long rifles, period. so both are in common use, and therefore cannot be banned.


also, it is perfectly legal to manufacture your own firearm - people start with 80% lowers and go from there. they are un-serialized, and therefore, untrackable.

5-4. Look at countries that have instituted bans. Would you risk your freedom over it?

 

[highland145]

The simple answer is that where emotion is, reason isn't. Those people probably feel threatened by the big government bogeyman, so anything anyone ever says about big government is taken as absolute truth, because you just never know what those bastards will go after next. I see it all the time, both in my family and online.

I assume that you know the history that led to the 2A. "you just never know what those bastards will go after next" Blame Gen Gates and then look at the reinforcement of that opinion.
1911 Turkey
1929 Russia
1935 China
1938 Germany
1956 Cambodia
1964 Guatemala
1970 Uganda
1994 Rwanda

Are these valid examples of what can happen with confiscation? Probably depends on your opinion and/or if you're on the receiving end of the slaughter.

 

[Greenman]

Which sort of underlines the point that using an ancient text that was written before a lot of common things were invented as an unmoving basis for modern laws is an "interesting" experiment.

I think so as well. I wish the US would give it a try as I'd like to see the outcome.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

I think so as well. I wish the US would give it a try as I'd like to see the outcome.

Why?

 

[Dr. Zaus]

I assume that you know the history that led to the 2A. "you just never know what those bastards will go after next" Blame Gen Gates and then look at the reinforcement of that opinion.
1911 Turkey
1929 Russia
1935 China
1938 Germany
1956 Cambodia
1964 Guatemala
1970 Uganda
1994 Rwanda

Are these valid examples of what can happen with confiscation? Probably depends on your opinion and/or if you're on the receiving end of the slaughter.

1968-1997 The United Kingdom
1996- Australia

Just because something seems like a necessary condition for something else doesn't mean that it causes it or that it implies that it will happen.

 

[highland145]

1968-1997 The United Kingdom
1996- Australia

Just because something is seems like a necessary condition for with something else doesn't mean that it causes it or that it implies that it will happen.

True but once disarmed, you won't have the option of standing up against tyranny if it begins. If Gates/his tactics had succeeded, we'd be Brits. Have you eaten their food?D:

 

[Ruptga]

Highland you have illustrated my point nicely, thank you and goodnight.

 

[highland145]

So you've tried their food too?

 

[SMOGZINN]

Highland you have illustrated my point nicely, thank you and goodnight.

The interesting thing about your point is that you don't have one. All you say is they are wrong, but have no argument about why.

 

[lotus503]

Which sort of underlines the point that using an ancient text that was written before a lot of common things were invented as an unmoving basis for modern laws is an "interesting" experiment.

Bingo, then add to that to people responsible for interpreting this ancient text as a matter of law, bring with them much personal bias.

I think the Constitution was a great accomplishment in forward thinking, however the reality of when it was written vs the reality of now leaves just too much open to bias interpretation and abuse.

Frankly we need a new constitution we can use similar ideals and values as it applies to the modern world.

But before we have a crack at that we need to gut the branches of the government and rid them of lobbying parasites.

 

[Ruptga]

The interesting thing about your point is that you don't have one. All you say is they are wrong, but have no argument about why.

I'm sorry to hear about your learning disability. It's very plain and only 14 posts above yours: where emotion is, reason isn't.

Are these valid examples of what can happen with confiscation? Probably depends on your opinion and/or if you're on the receiving end of the slaughter.

Does that look like an even-handed impartial reading of history? There are very clear counterpoints.

1968-1997 The United Kingdom
1996- Australia

Just because something is seems like a necessary condition for with something else doesn't mean that it causes it or that it implies that it will happen.

Confiscation (to use his term) was lumped in with murdering tyrants, and so became just as evil as murdering tyrants; rather than arguing the merits and demerits of confiscation, we jumped straight into murder and tyranny. That is how emotion sabotages rational thought.

 

[JEDIYoda]

All you say is they are wrong, but have no argument about why.

If he mneeds to state why.....all you are looking for is a way to insert your dissenting opinion!

 

[highland145]

I'm sorry to hear about your learning disability. It's very plain and only 14 posts above yours: where emotion is, reason isn't.

That's where you're wrong. I'm not feeling much emotional distress over the subject. It's highly doubtful the govt will send storm troopers to my door for my guns. I'm more concerned about the economy collapsing before that.

And I don't have any guns anyway.

Does that look like an even-handed impartial reading of history? There are very clear counterpoints.

Examples, just like Dixy's. You could argue that his aren't even handed or impartial. Are they fair for the subject we're having? Depends but I already posted that.

Confiscation (to use his term) was lumped in with murdering tyrants, and so became just as evil as murdering tyrants; rather than arguing the merits and demerits of confiscation, we jumped straight into murder and tyranny. That is how emotion sabotages rational thought.

Were those examples not murdering tyrants that imposed confiscations? And why would that not be an argument against confiscation? I posted the reason we have the 2A and what/who caused it. Wouldn't the revolutionaries have considered British rule tyranny?

 

[Greenman]

Bingo, then add to that to people responsible for interpreting this ancient text as a matter of law, bring with them much personal bias.

I think the Constitution was a great accomplishment in forward thinking, however the reality of when it was written vs the reality of now leaves just too much open to bias interpretation and abuse.

Frankly we need a new constitution we can use similar ideals and values as it applies to the modern world.

But before we have a crack at that we need to gut the branches of the government and rid them of lobbying parasites.

I could see complete anarchy working better.

 

[SMOGZINN]

I'm sorry to hear about your learning disability.

I would like to remind you that this is not P&N, name calling will not be tolerated here.

It's very plain and only 14 posts above yours: where emotion is, reason isn't.

I find that a bad argument. Emotion does not rule out reason. It often replaces reason, but that is not a requirement. I can be emotional about a perfectly reasonable conclusion.

rather than arguing the merits and demerits of confiscation

Well, I think it is fair to say that confiscation with out the consent of the people IS tyranny and since it would require armed men attempting to forcibly remove weapons from other armed men would quickly lead to murder. Do you have an argument against that, or are you the one using emotion instead of reason?

 

[Ruptga]

This thread is not actually about gun rights or the second amendment, and I suspect the OP would appreciate us shutting up and returning to topic. With that in mind, I'm not making any more OT replies after this one.

1. Emotion does not necessarily rule out reason, however in practice it very often displaces it, to the point that for the sake of brevity one can simply say that where emotion is, reason isn't. Technically false, practically true.

2. An extremely common hidden premise among gun confiscation zealots is that confiscation (again using your terms) is done without consent. Here's one easy counter-example off the top of my head

The [1968 Firearms] Act was accompanied by an amnesty; many older weapons were handed into the police. It has remained a feature of British policing that from time-to-time a brief firearms amnesty is declared.[69]

During periods of amnesty illegal and/or unlicensed firearms can be voluntarily surrendered at no penalty. There's no gun gestapo that goes around violating civil liberties as they remove illegal arms.

It's my opinion that

Spoiler

confiscation zealots are so concerned about perceived erosion of freedoms that they think someone or someones either are presently or will soon try to co-opt the government and establish some kind of fascist state. Since they think that's either happening or imminent, they go into fight or flight mode, which is where guns get involved. They seriously think that where entire democratic institutions will fail they and their civilian-grade guns will stand firm, because they're thinking with their hearts rather than their heads. If you're really so worried about tyranny you ought to be agitating about campaign finance reform, lobbying reform, voter suppression, or even collective bargaining rights. If our democracy ever falls your guns will be little more than a speed bump for whatever takes it out.

Edit for clarity: I do mean confiscation zealots, and only confiscation zealots. I am not trying to conflate confiscation zealots with any other group. I am not talking about gun collectors or hunters, even though those categories do overlap in places. I actually own a shotgun, .22, and air rifle and I sometimes hunt.

 

[Greenman]

This thread is not actually about gun rights or the second amendment, and I suspect the OP would appreciate us shutting up and returning to topic. With that in mind, I'm not making any more OT replies after this one.

1. Emotion does not necessarily rule out reason, however in practice it very often displaces it, to the point that for the sake of brevity one can simply say that where emotion is, reason isn't. Technically false, practically true.

2. An extremely common hidden premise among gun confiscation zealots is that confiscation (again using your terms) is done without consent. Here's one easy counter-example off the top of my head
During periods of amnesty illegal and/or unlicensed firearms can be voluntarily surrendered at no penalty. There's no gun gestapo that goes around violating civil liberties as they remove illegal arms.

It's my opinion that

Spoiler

confiscation zealots are so concerned about perceived erosion of freedoms that they think someone or someones either are presently or will soon try to co-opt the government and establish some kind of fascist state. Since they think that's either happening or imminent, they go into fight or flight mode, which is where guns get involved. They seriously think that where entire democratic institutions will fail they and their civilian-grade guns will stand firm, because they're thinking with their hearts rather than their heads. If you're really so worried about tyranny you ought to be agitating about campaign finance reform, lobbying reform, voter suppression, or even collective bargaining rights. If our democracy ever falls your guns will be little more than a speed bump for whatever takes it out.

I disagree. Most of the people I know that are into firearms do have a concern that they will at some point be banned, but it isn't the reason for collecting them. They collect them because they can, it's a hobby. Much like stamps or dolls or any of the thousand other things people collect. The fringe that really believes they may have to take on the Feds generally don't talk about the weapons they have stashed.

 

[Moonbeam]

True but once disarmed, you won't have the option of standing up against tyranny if it begins. If Gates/his tactics had succeeded, we'd be Brits. Have you eaten their food?D:

I am eating it very day and it's far and away superior to what I eat in the states. All kinds of fish and sea food, magnificent breads, cheeses, desserts, and starter plates, duck, venison, lamb, pheasant, beef,rabbit, wood pigeon, pork ham and sausage of every description, fruit and salads, and magnificent beer, and the haggis, I almost forgot, which is divine. Come and see, but don't forget your wallet.

 

[highland145]

I am eating it very day and it's far and away superior to what I eat in the states. All kinds of fish and sea food, magnificent breads, cheeses, desserts, and starter plates, duck, venison, lamb, pheasant, beef,rabbit, wood pigeon, pork ham and sausage of every description, fruit and salads, and magnificent beer, and the haggis, I almost forgot, which is divine. Come and see, but don't forget your wallet.

D: Black pudding...D:

It's been 12 years, we were doing the 2 week whirlwind tour. The breakfasts at the B&Bs were good but I don't remember anything else that appealed to me other than the Scrumpy Jack cider.