Sam Harris: A Liberal's Argument Against Gun Control

[dank69]

Wow, I can't believe you point to those cases as your defense. You REALLY need to read up on those cases before you actually go claiming crap you have zero knowledge of. Seriously you made yourself look absolutely stupid right there.

Look, I'm no lawyer and don't claim to have full knowledge of either of those cases. I pulled those two examples out of my ass to make a simple point. I don't care if McD's served me a cup of coffee at 212 degrees F, if I spilled it on myself that isn't their fault and that company should not be held liable.

 

[dank69]

Read what I wrote again. It's not a mutually exclusive statement.

I don't think we are communicating properly. I would never claim those two statements are mutually exclusive, so I'm not sure why you think I am.

 

[HumblePie]

Look, I'm no lawyer and don't claim to have full knowledge of either of those cases. I pulled those two examples out of my ass to make a simple point. I don't care if McD's served me a cup of coffee at 212 degrees F, if I spilled it on myself that isn't their fault and that company should not be held liable.

ARGH stop it. SERIOUSLY. You are making yourself look absolutely retarded with that statement. I mean you are making a kid with down syndrome, a pancake on his head, and nun chucks on the internet look like a super genius. Seriously do not make another post until you do some actual research on this because anything else you post is going to look just as retarded.

 

[dank69]

ARGH stop it. SERIOUSLY. You are making yourself look absolutely retarded with that statement. I mean you are making a kid with down syndrome, a pancake on his head, and nun chucks on the internet look like a super genius. Seriously do not make another post until you do some actual research on this because anything else you post is going to look just as retarded.

Why don't you save the hyperbole and just tell me all about why the person deserved the $1M? You can dumb it way down to my level.

 

[HumblePie]

I don't think we are communicating properly. I would never claim those two statements are mutually exclusive, so I'm not sure why you think I am.

Ugh... It's like having a logical debate with a 5 year old now with you.

1) I stated every armed revolt has always succeeded in history.

2) you counter that the Native Americans and Mayans, while armed, didn't win in their fight.

Which by the way, your counter argument there is a strawman logic fallacy of using incorrect equivalency.

3) I stated again my number 1 assertion, and said that your number 2 assertion, which deals with conquering nations is correct in that not every armed defense against a conquering nation has been successful. Some defenses are and some are not throughout history.

4) I am trying to point out that armed revolts against an oppressive government are NOT the same thing as armed defensive actions against a conquering army.

5) Your refusal to understand number 4 and try to equate my claim of stating not every armed defense has worked as something else is why I am mocking you now.

 

[soundforbjt]

xj0hnx appears to be correct, regardless of what the TV show said. See here:



http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/guns.html

Fern

Except I was referring to neighborhood street gangs in a large city, not all gun crimes.

 

[Broheim]

Do you have gun legislation tougher than getting a pilots license?

actually yes, because the police is not obligated to issue you a license for a particular weapon even if you have the certifications and meet the requirements for it.

you are at the whims of whatever asshole is in charge of issuing weapons licenses that day.

 

[HumblePie]

Why don't you save the hyperbole and just tell me all about why the person deserved the $1M? You can dumb it way down to my level.

FFS

do your own reading.

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm

Really did I have to google that for you?

 

[ivwshane]

Tyranny from a government agency, or representative does not need to happen on a national scale for a citizen to require the need to defend themselves. That's a strawman logic fallacy.

You think tyranny at the local level isn't the same emotional appeal as tyranny at the national level?

 

[soundforbjt]

No not at all. And especially not from a historical context either. Every armed revolt in human recorded history has succeeded. Every armed defense against a conquering nation has not. You can not equate the two because there are vast difference between the two beyond the "mentality of the aggressor" as you are claiming.

The biggest difference is time scale. I'll let you think on that for awhile. If that doesn't spark a light bulb in your head then I'll illustrate further.

So, the South won the Civil War?

 

[HumblePie]

So, the South won the Civil War?

Not a revolt. False equivalency.

 

[dank69]

Ugh... It's like having a logical debate with a 5 year old now with you.

1) I stated every armed revolt has always succeeded in history.

2) you counter that the Native Americans and Mayans, while armed, didn't win in their fight.

Which by the way, your counter argument there is a strawman logic fallacy of using incorrect equivalency.

3) I stated again my number 1 assertion, and said that your number 2 assertion, which deals with conquering nations is correct in that not every armed defense against a conquering nation has been successful. Some defenses are and some are not throughout history.

4) I am trying to point out that armed revolts against an oppressive government are NOT the same thing as armed defensive actions against a conquering army.

5) Your refusal to understand number 4 and try to equate my claim of stating not every armed defense has worked as something else is why I am mocking you now.

You need to settle the fuck down because it is you who is making an ass of himself. You want to have a logical debate? Start by not using words like "every." Generalizations like that violate the first rule of logical debate.

I already accepted that my examples of Mayans and Native Americans are not revolts. You made the claim that they are different, to which I countered that the difference lies in the aggressors' heads. Please come up with an example of a difference that has nothing to do with psycology.

 

[dank69]

Not a revolt. False equivalency.

Wow! Now who is being a fucking dumbass?

 

[HumblePie]

You think tyranny at the local level isn't the same emotional appeal as tyranny at the national level?

How is that an emotional appeal? Government tyranny can happen at any level. Citizens have a right to defend themselves from all forms of tyranny. Which is not to say that means grabbing the guns and start shooting either. Defense can come in many forms. The LAST resort of defense from your own government tyranny is to break out the guns. And that is regardless of the tyranny being from a small local level or a large national level. That was the intention of the 2nd amendment.

 

[dank69]

FFS

do your own reading.

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm

Really did I have to google that for you?

The whole case depends on the drink being "scalding." Do you not understand that the example of a 212 degrees F drink would qualify as scalding? Do you not understand that I still don't think the company should be liable?

 

[soundforbjt]

Not a revolt. False equivalency.

It wasn't. What was it then?

 

[ivwshane]

What's a tax and what's a fee? Is it a fee but not a tax if it's used to verify information and costs the fed/state/local revenue to do it?

It doesn't matter what you call, if it's not free and is required to vote its a poll tax. And that's not my opinion it's the courts opinion.
So are you standing by your comment or not?

Not a revolt. False equivalency.

Shays rebellion?




What a fucking stupid debate. Tyranny of any type is a BS reason for guns just as banning guns is a BS reason for stopping violence. Neither will stop the other from happening and both are on the microscopic scale of happening.

 

[HumblePie]

You need to settle the fuck down because it is you who is making an ass of himself. You want to have a logical debate? Start by not using words like "every." Generalizations like that violate the first rule of logical debate.

I already accepted that my examples of Mayans and Native Americans are not revolts. You made the claim that they are different, to which I countered that the difference lies in the aggressors' heads. Please come up with an example of a difference that has nothing to do with psycology.

I showed you a difference. The biggest is of TIME SCALE. An armed war, which usually has the victor being the aggressor usually happens on a small time scale. Wars that last a long time, usually favor the defense or a stalemate. Revolts can be over very quickly, or as the case in many times over generations until those revolting eventually win.

As for the civil war, it was the north that revolted not the south. The south had almost all the president until then and the senate control. They were trying to force oppressive laws that the north revolted against. The revolt started as a political movement to gain control of the government before becoming an all out war. The oppression was on slaves who eventually revolted and won.

 

[HumblePie]

It wasn't. What was it then?

sorry, meant to say not a revolt of the south against the north. other way around and shows that again in history a revolt against oppression won. Meaning using argument against me was silly in the extreme.

 

[ivwshane]

sorry, meant to say not a revolt of the south against the north. other way around and shows that again in history a revolt against oppression won. Meaning using argument against me was silly in the extreme.

Lol wut?

 

[child of wonder]

An appeal to authority is a well known fallacy. For example Eisenstein was a hell of mathematician and physicist but I wouldn't of asked him for advice on marriage (knowing what I know about his personal life) or consider him an expert in a field totally unrelated to what he studied and expect him to have been an authority on the issue just because he had a P.H.D in physics.

*sigh*

When did I appeal to his authority?

A statement was made that Sam Harris "is idiot."

I pointed out that given his PhD in neuroscience he is most likely not an idiot.

 

[dank69]

I showed you a difference. The biggest is of TIME SCALE. An armed war, which usually has the victor being the aggressor usually happens on a small time scale. Wars that last a long time, usually favor the defense or a stalemate. Revolts can be over very quickly, or as the case in many times over generations until those revolting eventually win.

As for the civil war, it was the north that revolted not the south. The south had almost all the president until then and the senate control. They were trying to force oppressive laws that the north revolted against. The revolt started as a political movement to gain control of the government before becoming an all out war. The oppression was on slaves who eventually revolted and won.

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?

 

[monovillage]

It doesn't matter what you call, if it's not free and is required to vote its a poll tax. And that's not my opinion it's the courts opinion.

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.

 

[irishScott]

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. You think the government doesn't have or can't aquire food/fuel supplies? You think they can't wipe out the bread basket states' ability to produce food for the rebellion? Cut off most supplies to the citizens? I'm not buying it.

I'm saying if you cut off access to a military base of any variety then said base is living on borrowed time. Nevermind that if numerous states rebel supply lines could be cut at any place at any time. Once again, look at Afghanistan. There are supply problems there and those supplies comes from a single, large supply line protected by the combined might of the US military, stretched over a relatively short distance (compared to the distances in the continental US).

Securing and supplying the myriad military bases across the continental US would require securing a ridiculously high number of supply lines of greatly varying lengths from a (presumably) determined adversary. Can you say "logistical impossibility"? Imagine if in Afghanistan right now, you fragmented our single supply line through Pakistan into hundreds and routed many of them through the most hostile provinces of Pakistan. Yeah, good luck with that.

This isn't the USSR, food and supplies don't go through some governmental distribution network they can just shut down on a whim. Short of destroying farms, which would be tough going considering likely military defections, what are they going to do?

I'm not saying it would be an easy or simple thing, but it's definitely plausible. If you don't want to buy logistical and military realities, that's your problem. I've had similar discussions with multiple members of the military and they all agree with my general premise. *shrug*

 

[chucky2]

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?

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