The Pew Pew Thread

Page 9 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
68,668
4,596
126
That's what you were going for.




Cool, there is no God, and we're not likely to get a SCOTUS to be filled with libertarians. I mean, a SCOTUS is the antithesis of what a libertarian would believe in.





Um yea, if this is some attempt to shame me, then it's gonna back fire, because you are with them there on that as well. We all have ideals, whether we know it or not, and want certain things to be implemented in society.




That's funny, because you are the one using the words good and evil for this topic. Not only that, you're telling me that I'm using them when I'm really not. So here you go round and round with your self saying they don't exist, but at the same time you've used those terms already.




No thanks.




What a great rationalization for your strawman, you know....where you misrepresent what others are saying so you can reply to what you want to instead. Fantastic show!



How do you know what I know as truth? This is an internet forum for techies, lol.

Knowing things doesn't make you egotistical, stroking your ego while pretending others can't possibly know what you know does though.



Oh shit, Moonie tossed out an LOL, showing his humanity once again. I think that's great.

Oh, I can't buy you anything, not even more perspective obviously.

Religion ingrained authoritarian world views into me just like billions of others. My experience showed me that half my life ago, and I've been battling it ever since. Unlike you, I'm more of a pragmatist than an idealist. So sure, sometimes I'll have some authoritarian undertones, but it's far less than my young self. That doesn't mean you're more "progressive", or "libertarian" than I am, it just means I'm honest with myself.

You're doing the Lord's work there moonie. After all, guns and Jesus are every American's God given right!

Shoot ;)

But it's not me that isn't ready for it. It's humanity.
Of course you are a pragmatist. That is why you are blind and can't understand my perspective. You gauge the applicability of political ideas on real world factual conditions, what works in the world as it is. This is you minus the fanaticism you also bring to that way of looking at things, that it is the only way and should have the force of law brought to bear to enforce practical rules. What you call idealism is the notion that man as he is is in a state that is perfectible based on the attitude of his world view, that man as we find him is psychologically capable of conscious evolution beyond anything you dream, my dear Horatio.

In shout, your world view is subjective, based only on facts as you understand them, not facts as they really are. You have no foundation for the truth of what you believe other than your reading of the data that supports what you believe, data that is corrupted by the low level of conscious evolution of the people you from whom it is measured.

And there you are stuck because there is no exit from this form of belief. It is the dead end you reach when seeking to correct the world's ills.

It is also fundamentally anti liberal in the classical sense and anti-Americam. We hold these truths to be self evident, that we are endowed somehow or another with a human nature that will always express itself in a longing for self expression that fundamentally accords with the manner is which the God we conceive of is projected from that real and true human self. You don't get it because you do not know who you really are. You are afraid to trust in yourself because to trust would awaken the fact that for a long long time now you have actually been psychically dead.

There is nothing to fear but fear itself, no need to stay in hiding.

I have tried to inform you of these facts in case you can use them, in case you tire of the prison of hopelessness. I can do no more that tell you that once long ago I had an experience that changed my life and ended my search for an exit.

There is only love and a conscious state where only love can exist. You do yourself no favors denying this.

To be is to be present timelessly. To not be is to not be in time. To be anywhere else is where the mess is.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
68,668
4,596
126
Man shoots neighbor over parking space, police say: 'That's my spot'

Fox News|43 minutes ago
A Texas bodybuilder is recovering in the hospital after police said he was shot by another man over a dispute about a parking space.



Why is Fox covering this?





Guess which one is the shooter.
Somebody's feelings of self worthlessness got triggered by having someone else disrespect their parking space rights, apparently not for the first time. Of course a willingness to disrespect someone else's parking rights is the result also of such self hate. Why should I extend to others what I feel I don't get from others.

You have to love the system we have created. It gives you such wonderful things like if you pay your rent you get a parking space all to yourself. What treasures our system has for the worthy.
 

hal2kilo

Lifer
Feb 24, 2009
19,805
6,513
136
Somebody musta' been sauced.

Fast-Food Employee Shot During Alleged Dispute With Customer Over Sauce

The employee was later transported to a nearby hospital where he was treated for non-life-threatening injuries.
I'll never forget the first time I was asked at a fast food place, what sauce do you want? Sauce? You have sauces? How bout a little bearnaise. Really, you got mustard, catsup, barbeque. I get they are sauces, but I guess condiment would really confuse the shit with about half the population anymore.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
68,668
4,596
126
I'll never forget the first time I was asked at a fast food place, what sauce do you want? Sauce? You have sauces? How bout a little bearnaise. Really, you got mustard, catsup, barbeque. I get they are sauces, but I guess condiment would really confuse the shit with about half the population anymore.
At least the half that doesn't want to have babies.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: hal2kilo

ch33zw1z

Lifer
Nov 4, 2004
35,065
14,158
146
Of course you are a pragmatist. That is why you are blind and can't understand my perspective. You gauge the applicability of political ideas on real world factual conditions, what works in the world as it is. This is you minus the fanaticism you also bring to that way of looking at things, that it is the only way and should have the force of law brought to bear to enforce practical rules. What you call idealism is the notion that man as he is is in a state that is perfectible based on the attitude of his world view, that man as we find him is psychologically capable of conscious evolution beyond anything you dream, my dear Horatio.

In shout, your world view is subjective, based only on facts as you understand them, not facts as they really are. You have no foundation for the truth of what you believe other than your reading of the data that supports what you believe, data that is corrupted by the low level of conscious evolution of the people you from whom it is measured.

And there you are stuck because there is no exit from this form of belief. It is the dead end you reach when seeking to correct the world's ills.

It is also fundamentally anti liberal in the classical sense and anti-Americam. We hold these truths to be self evident, that we are endowed somehow or another with a human nature that will always express itself in a longing for self expression that fundamentally accords with the manner is which the God we conceive of is projected from that real and true human self. You don't get it because you do not know who you really are. You are afraid to trust in yourself because to trust would awaken the fact that for a long long time now you have actually been psychically dead.

There is nothing to fear but fear itself, no need to stay in hiding.

I have tried to inform you of these facts in case you can use them, in case you tire of the prison of hopelessness. I can do no more that tell you that once long ago I had an experience that changed my life and ended my search for an exit.

There is only love and a conscious state where only love can exist. You do yourself no favors denying this.

To be is to be present timelessly. To not be is to not be in time. To be anywhere else is where the mess is.
lol ok moonie, a long winded way to tell me that you want a suppressor, not to wait 10 days, and apparently gun deaths in age group 1-24 doesn't really mattet to you.

nice of you to tell me who I am again, totally not authoritarian of you. Very progressive.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
68,668
4,596
126
lol ok moonie, a long winded way to tell me that you want a suppressor, not to wait 10 days, and apparently gun deaths in age group 1-24 doesn't really mattet to you.

nice of you to tell me who I am again, totally not authoritarian of you. Very progressive.
In California I can't legally own a suppressor because too many Democrats watch movies but know nothing about reality. You have to wait ten days to pick up a gun just bought to provide a cool down period in case the person you want to kill with it you change your mind during the waiting period. If that is legal why not a two hundred year waiting period. And you are the one who actually does not care about kids because you won't go for the real change we need to solve the violence problem. You don't even see that. This might help:

:) Found it just a few minutes ago.
 

ch33zw1z

Lifer
Nov 4, 2004
35,065
14,158
146
In California I can't legally own a suppressor because too many Democrats watch movies but know nothing about reality. You have to wait ten days to pick up a gun just bought to provide a cool down period in case the person you want to kill with it you change your mind during the waiting period. If that is legal why not a two hundred year waiting period. And you are the one who actually does not care about kids because you won't go for the real change we need to solve the violence problem. You don't even see that.
lol, i thought you were going with the word "reasonable" here, no? 200 hundred years seems reasonable to you?

I'm for real change, serve it up. Until then we're going with bandaids, and barely even that.

Whatever man, you've shown you emotional humanity on this topic. Welcome back.

I did chuckle at your "no u" reply though, that's a good one :)
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
68,668
4,596
126
lol, i thought you were going with the word "reasonable" here, no? 200 hundred years seems reasonable to you?

I'm for real change, serve it up. Until then we're going with bandaids, and barely even that.

Whatever man, you've shown you emotional humanity on this topic. Welcome back.

I did chuckle at your "no u" reply though, that's a good one :)
Are you really going to argue that if a ten day waiting period to buy a gun in California is a good way to prevent potential impulsive rage killings by suddenly triggered individuals who, after ten days of time to cool down and reconsider the implications of getting caught and spending life in prison for killing someone, then a 200 year waiting period would not be even better? Come on, being realistic surely doesn't mean that simple logic goes out the window.

And I hope, also, that in your desire to alter facts of nature, you aren't also going to tell me that if there were no people who suddenly upped and wanted to kill people because their emotional ego state had been triggered, and instead they had grown up mentally healthy and emotionally developed, that wouldn't be better than if they had to wait ten days to buy a gun while still having grown up mentally ill.

The joke here, of course, is that while you claim to favor real change over Band-Aids and that I am somehow opposed to that, my issues with gun laws are not centered around regulation of who can own them. I favor laws that will keep guns out of the hands of people who, limited thought our abilities be to determine who is potentially dangerous and who is not, we do what we can in that direction. I have no problem with laws that require education and the application of safety rules for home storage of guns where children are involved.

What I oppose are gun laws directed at guns that affect what I believe to be proper rights of law abiding citizens not to be subjected to the whims of irrational gun ignorant and gun hating liberals who don't give a shit about whom their idiotic laws inconvenience. Such people don't give a shit that they leave responsible people under equipped to defend themselves against people who have no interest in abiding by the law and can arm themselves however they choose.

As I said, in California an ordinary law abiding citizen who can pass any psychological test of fitness or gun competence will rarely be able to obtain a permit to conceal carry like one can do in most of the rest of the country. It is, I believe, up to the local sheriff. Never mind open carry. I see that done more by people intending to flout their rights at the price of disregard for others comfort and is not necessary for self defense. Maybe in bear country.

So the real difference between us, seems to me, comes down to how we see our fellow human beings. When you seek to institute authoritarian measures to control other people based on the notion that without such control they will seek to do evil, evil that you must impute to be there even when I say it doesn't exist and implicit in what you refer to as sensible reality, you go down what I see as a dangerous path. You foreclose on any and all solutions that contain the notion of human perfectibility and progress toward more psychologically fulfilling conscious and therefore emotional states. And you do so because you do not fundamentally trust yourself, you have nothing but subjective feelings to anchor your opinions. You do not see those inalienable rights that adhere to being, things that even Jordan Peterson can see.

Shine on, you crazy diamond

Remember when you were young
You shone like the Sun


Shine on, you crazy diamond

Now there's a look in your eyes
Like black holes in the sky

Shine on, you crazy diamond


You were caught in the crossfire of childhood and stardom
Blown on the steel breeze
Come on, you target for faraway laughter
Come on, you stranger, you legend, you martyr, and shine

You reached for the secret too soon
You cried for the Moon


Shine on, you crazy diamond

Threatened by shadows at night
And exposed in the light

Shine on (Shine on), you crazy diamond (You crazy diamond)

Well, you wore out your welcome with random precision
Rode on the steel breeze
Come on, you raver, you seer of visions
Come on, you painter, you piper, you prisoner, and shine
 
Mar 11, 2004
21,874
4,065
126
lol, i thought you were going with the word "reasonable" here, no? 200 hundred years seems reasonable to you?

I'm for real change, serve it up. Until then we're going with bandaids, and barely even that.

Whatever man, you've shown you emotional humanity on this topic. Welcome back.

I did chuckle at your "no u" reply though, that's a good one :)
He's at least more entertaining when he's at least being honest with who he is. I always knew he was a full of shit conservative. Its just his broken brain did everything it could to try and hide that by pontificating like his idol, where he proselytizes a bunch of nonsense trying so desperately to sound intelligent when he's saying really stupid things. Its still sad that he seems to genuinely believe he's some objective arbiter of truth when he's constantly just projecting his own views of other people onto them. He really doesn't seem to view other people as actual people but rather mindless pods, tabula rasa that he gives them their experiences and knowledge and subsequently he gets to determine the reality of. Him howling about mental health has been enjoyable though as he's like a living embodiment of the supposed "intellectual" strain of the modern conservative mindset, and perfectly explains the mental health issues of right wingers.
 

ch33zw1z

Lifer
Nov 4, 2004
35,065
14,158
146
Are you really going to argue that if a ten day waiting period to buy a gun in California is a good way to prevent potential impulsive rage killings by suddenly triggered individuals who, after ten days of time to cool down and reconsider the implications of getting caught and spending life in prison for killing someone, then a 200 year waiting period would not be even better? Come on, being realistic surely doesn't mean that simple logic goes out the window.
Why would I argue that for you? That's YOUR argument, which hyperbolic, and intentionally over the top.

And I hope, also, that in your desire to alter facts of nature, you aren't also going to tell me that if there were no people who suddenly upped and wanted to kill people because their emotional ego state had been triggered, and instead they had grown up mentally healthy and emotionally developed, that wouldn't be better than if they had to wait ten days to buy a gun while still having grown up mentally ill.
lol, "my desire to alter facts of human nature", is purely projection on your part.

The joke here, of course, is that while you claim to favor real change over Band-Aids and that I am somehow opposed to that, my issues with gun laws are not centered around regulation of who can own them. I favor laws that will keep guns out of the hands of people who, limited thought our abilities be to determine who is potentially dangerous and who is not, we do what we can in that direction. I have no problem with laws that require education and the application of safety rules for home storage of guns where children are involved.
You've shown your opposed to real change. Your focus in on one aspect, mine's on whatever works and isn't a violation of the 2A. The two main items your complaining about aren't violations.

What I oppose are gun laws directed at guns that affect what I believe to be proper rights of law abiding citizens not to be subjected to the whims of irrational gun ignorant and gun hating liberals who don't give a shit about whom their idiotic laws inconvenience. Such people don't give a shit that they leave responsible people under equipped to defend themselves against people who have no interest in abiding by the law and can arm themselves however they choose.
You have two hands, two guns, self defense still intact. You're planning for the next civil war, while also touting that human nature is "good" (but there is no good and evil either, your words). It's amazing to see your cognitive dissonance on this topic.

As I said, in California an ordinary law abiding citizen who can pass any psychological test of fitness or gun competence will rarely be able to obtain a permit to conceal carry like one can do in most of the rest of the country. It is, I believe, up to the local sheriff. Never mind open carry. I see that done more by people intending to flout their rights at the price of disregard for others comfort and is not necessary for self defense. Maybe in bear country.
Ok? It sounds like California just isn't the right state for you bro.

So the real difference between us, seems to me, comes down to how we see our fellow human beings. When you seek to institute authoritarian measures to control other people based on the notion that without such control they will seek to do evil, evil that you must impute to be there even when I say it doesn't exist and implicit in what you refer to as sensible reality, you go down what I see as a dangerous path.
Good luck with your idealism that humans simply won't be driven to harm other humans if they were "raised" right, which totally won't be authoritarian in practice. Sure it didn't take you all these posts back and forth to realize the difference between you and me is how we view people. It was obvious many posts ago.

You foreclose on any and all solutions that contain the notion of human perfectibility and progress toward more psychologically fulfilling conscious and therefore emotional states. And you do so because you do not fundamentally trust yourself, you have nothing but subjective feelings to anchor your opinions. You do not see those inalienable rights that adhere to being, things that even Jordan Peterson can see.
I'm open to both, I'm open to solutions, I'm open to working in the system to reduce unnecessary gun deaths. You're not, and you've shown there over and over.

I'm not gonna quote some silly projection style song lyric to you, and this is indeed my last response to you.

Accidental gun deaths among 1-24 YO's has surpassed motor vehicle accidents. I don't like that, and it's preventable while still not violating the 2A. You don't care for certain type of solutions, and instead focus on a single pipe dream that wouldn't even amount to anything in our lifetime, doesn't take into account anything about humans or society, and also would take extreme amounts of authoritarianism to implement (while simultaneously calling others authoritarians)

Your replies are a slew of logical fallacies, projection, and flail.

At least you've moved on from invoking emotional replies like "people like you believe rape victims shouldn't get to defend themselves", hardly true, and reveals how deep you're in without even knowing it.
 
Last edited:

Bitek

Lifer
Aug 2, 2001
10,093
4,326
136
If you want to do something about gun violence and accidental deaths, you can do a couple of constructive things IMO without having to venture down guaranteed to fail authoritarian equipment bans, and other bureaucratic nuisance laws.

1. Focus on gun trafficking and illegal purchases (eg straw purchases - buying a gun for someone else in order to circumvent existing laws.) This is where many of the crime guns originate

2. Safety - facilitate training on guns and education of safe practices. Guns are a part of life, help people learn how to treat them.

Many ranges offer training, but it's costly. States can help subsidize training for those that can't afford it (and really anyone.)

Many states do this for motorcycle riders and offering free training courses for novice riders to help reduce traffic deaths. No reason not to do this for guns. (Notice they don't ban motorcycles, or mandate ridiculous designs... Or tax purchase of PPE (eg helmets.)

You could even offer tax credits for gun safes and other such equipment to help people safely store guns. Yes, locks come with guns, but it's not very effective.

3. Don't pass antagonistic laws, so you have no credibility when you want to pass something actually effective.
 

Bitek

Lifer
Aug 2, 2001
10,093
4,326
136
Joke is on anti-gun democrats regarding suppressors.

Current law is from 1932, and big imposition to owning a suppressor was a $200 tax stamp. Idea was to prevent poor people from getting suppressors bc of possible poaching during the depression. Not an outright ban at federal level. Rich people (including well equipped criminals) can get them just fine bc they weren't the starving poor.

However, the tax isn't indexed to inflation, so currently it's more of an annoyance rather than a big hurdle. Guns are already an expensive hobby..

There are bills from Republicans (of course) to reclassify suppressors and get them out of the NFA law and treat them like other accessories and safety equipment.

D's could face the inevitable reduced hindrances of the tax stamp and get on board passing the law, and show some good faith to the community, or they can be lock step antigun and handover more reasons to vote for Rs.

Ds excel at losing elections, so I won't hold my breath.
 

Fenixgoon

Lifer
Jun 30, 2003
29,294
5,476
126
Joke is on anti-gun democrats regarding suppressors.

Current law is from 1932, and big imposition to owning a suppressor was a $200 tax stamp. Idea was to prevent poor people from getting suppressors bc of possible poaching during the depression. Not an outright ban at federal level. Rich people (including well equipped criminals) can get them just fine bc they weren't the starving poor.

However, the tax isn't indexed to inflation, so currently it's more of an annoyance rather than a big hurdle. Guns are already an expensive hobby..

There are bills from Republicans (of course) to reclassify suppressors and get them out of the NFA law and treat them like other accessories and safety equipment.

D's could face the inevitable reduced hindrances of the tax stamp and get on board passing the law, and show some good faith to the community, or they can be lock step antigun and handover more reasons to vote for Rs.

Ds excel at losing elections, so I won't hold my breath.
just the process of having to get the tax stamp means they aren't as ubiquitous as they'd otherwise be. sometimes speedbumps are all that's necessary.
 

Pipeline 1010

Golden Member
Dec 2, 2005
1,804
498
136
Anything to make discrete killing easier.
There are like 2.5 million+ REGISTERED suppressors. I don't often hear of murders committed with suppressed weapons, and even more rarely ever hear that the reason someone got away with their murder was because their weapon had a suppressor and all the nearby people who would have charged in the direction of the bullets to tackle and arrest that mofo just couldn't find him because they couldn't tell which direction the gun was fired from.

In your defense, it could simply be that those 2.5 million people who purchased (and also REGISTERED) their suppressors so they can commit and get away with murders REALLY SUCK AT MURDER, and you don't need to worry about them anyhow. Or maybe it's just spy novel shit, not real life. In real life they are purchased and used for the same reason people purchase and use ear protection during shooting: to reduce/eliminate hearing damage.

There are worthwhile ways to reduce gun violence and clutching our pearls at suppressors and their legal definition isn't one.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dave_5k

Bitek

Lifer
Aug 2, 2001
10,093
4,326
136
just the process of having to get the tax stamp means they aren't as ubiquitous as they'd otherwise be. sometimes speedbumps are all that's necessary.
Not really, just means the process is slow, and setting up a trust means you have your range be caretaker for it until you get approved. Plus you get conjugal visits until it's out of ATF jail.

You just can't take it home and clean it.
 
Last edited:

Fenixgoon

Lifer
Jun 30, 2003
29,294
5,476
126
Kitchen knives are silent. Do you go around murdering your neighbors?

Do we need to rig speakers on Tesla's so their owners don't sneak up on pedestrians and squish them?
"The Closer you get to being a Pro, the Closer you can get to the client. The Knife for example is the last thing you learn."
- Léon The Professional
 
  • Haha
Reactions: ch33zw1z

Captante

Lifer
Oct 20, 2003
23,032
5,095
136
Why would I argue that for you? That's YOUR argument, which hyperbolic, and intentionally over the top.



lol, "my desire to alter facts of human nature", is purely projection on your part.



You've shown your opposed to real change. Your focus in on one aspect, mine's on whatever works and isn't a violation of the 2A. The two main items your complaining about aren't violations.



You have two hands, two guns, self defense still intact. You're planning for the next civil war, while also touting that human nature is "good" (but there is no good and evil either, your words). It's amazing to see your cognitive dissonance on this topic.



Ok? It sounds like California just isn't the right state for you bro.



Good luck with your idealism that humans simply won't be driven to harm other humans if they were "raised" right, which totally won't be authoritarian in practice. Sure it didn't take you all these posts back and forth to realize the difference between you and me is how we view people. It was obvious many posts ago.



I'm open to both, I'm open to solutions, I'm open to working in the system to reduce unnecessary gun deaths. You're not, and you've shown there over and over.

I'm not gonna quote some silly projection style song lyric to you, and this is indeed my last response to you.

Accidental gun deaths among 1-24 YO's has surpassed motor vehicle accidents. I don't like that, and it's preventable while still not violating the 2A. You don't care for certain type of solutions, and instead focus on a single pipe dream that wouldn't even amount to anything in our lifetime, doesn't take into account anything about humans or society, and also would take extreme amounts of authoritarianism to implement (while simultaneously calling others authoritarians)

Your replies are a slew of logical fallacies, projection, and flail.

At least you've moved on from invoking emotional replies like "people like you believe rape victims shouldn't get to defend themselves", hardly true, and reveals how deep you're in without even knowing it.

While I DO admire your motivation I've personally reached my limit with the inane Moonbeam babble.

I suggest against beating your head on the wall any further! ;)
 
Mar 11, 2004
21,874
4,065
126
Why would I argue that for you? That's YOUR argument, which hyperbolic, and intentionally over the top.



lol, "my desire to alter facts of human nature", is purely projection on your part.



You've shown your opposed to real change. Your focus in on one aspect, mine's on whatever works and isn't a violation of the 2A. The two main items your complaining about aren't violations.



You have two hands, two guns, self defense still intact. You're planning for the next civil war, while also touting that human nature is "good" (but there is no good and evil either, your words). It's amazing to see your cognitive dissonance on this topic.



Ok? It sounds like California just isn't the right state for you bro.



Good luck with your idealism that humans simply won't be driven to harm other humans if they were "raised" right, which totally won't be authoritarian in practice. Sure it didn't take you all these posts back and forth to realize the difference between you and me is how we view people. It was obvious many posts ago.



I'm open to both, I'm open to solutions, I'm open to working in the system to reduce unnecessary gun deaths. You're not, and you've shown there over and over.

I'm not gonna quote some silly projection style song lyric to you, and this is indeed my last response to you.

Accidental gun deaths among 1-24 YO's has surpassed motor vehicle accidents. I don't like that, and it's preventable while still not violating the 2A. You don't care for certain type of solutions, and instead focus on a single pipe dream that wouldn't even amount to anything in our lifetime, doesn't take into account anything about humans or society, and also would take extreme amounts of authoritarianism to implement (while simultaneously calling others authoritarians)

Your replies are a slew of logical fallacies, projection, and flail.

At least you've moved on from invoking emotional replies like "people like you believe rape victims shouldn't get to defend themselves", hardly true, and reveals how deep you're in without even knowing it.
Oh god, he seriously went with the rape victims argument? I haven't even bothered reading his dogshit posts, I could already know his arguments just based on the replies to them because gun nutters are ridiculously formulaic and have not a single original thought in them.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY