Gun Control - Page 35

Mietz · 2013-02-28, 09:00 AM

Originally Posted by Helwyr

I know many collectivist authoritarians that call themselves "liberals" and have never had so much as a real fist fight get aroused at the image of A1 Abrams tanks laying waste to some "red neck" gun rights people armed rifles while they sit back drinking cocktails watching it all on CNN. However, that's as much a fantasy as is the notion it will play out just like it did vs the British in 1776. All that military hardware isn't run by AI programs yet, and not all the military in the US are automatons.

But rather than having a pissing contest over who "wins" a potential civil war like it's another video game why not just acknowledge it would be absolutely awful for everyone involved, and start acknowledging what's leading us down that path in the first place. Maybe you should start questioning what's going on in the world and not look to government and their propaganda arm the mainstream media for all the answers. We're heading into very dark times, and I'm not talking about the swamps of Hossin. You people cheering on the gun grabbers in the US are hastening disaster and potentially your own demise.

Clearly you have not understood a word I wrote.

Helwyr · 2013-03-01, 12:06 AM

Originally Posted by ChipMHazard

Way to spin that one. Going from arguing that a professional military force would almost certainly defeat an armed militia to gun control advocates and the government actually enjoying the wanton slaughter of their own people... Ok, you might want to calm down a bit before posting again.

No one has ever been able to stave off change by threats of violence, if you want to keep your weapon laws as they are now I would advice against threathing to kill anyone who tries to change that. Not going to work.
I won't blame you for being passionate about what you believe in, but come on...

I'm perfectly calm now and calm when I last posted, what's more I'm not threatening anyone. It isn't just me saying an Australian/UK type gun grab in the US will lead to civil war it's well known politicians, political commentators, and members of Law Enforcement.

Don't play games with me implying I'm making threats or that I'm enraged or some other nonsense, The only threat I'm going to make to you is that I'll report you for trolling and personal attacks. Which is exactly what your doing.

ChipMHazard · 2013-03-01, 08:01 AM

Originally Posted by Helwyr

I'm perfectly calm now and calm when I last posted, what's more I'm not threatening anyone. It isn't just me saying an Australian/UK type gun grab in the US will lead to civil war it's well known politicians, political commentators, and members of Law Enforcement.

Don't play games with me implying I'm making threats or that I'm enraged or some other nonsense, The only threat I'm going to make to you is that I'll report you for trolling and personal attacks. Which is exactly what your doing.

I didn't claim that you were making threats in the first part of your post, just that you were making an absolutely absurd claim that "liberals" would actually enjoy seeing the slaughter of their fellow citizens, if that's a claim that you're willing to make while being calm then... Yikes. I see absolutely no logical reason as to why you would make that assumption, besides the personal feelings of the people involved.
Also there are no facts pertaining to a civil war being the only foreseeable consequence, if anything there is more precedent for people simply being loud mouthed and not actually doing anything when it comes down to it. I very much doubt more than a handful of americans are willing to start a civil war over this issue if push came to shove. It's probably an easier thing to claim than realize, I should certainly hope that to be the case.

Originally Posted by Helwyr

You people cheering on the gun grabbers in the US are hastening disaster and potentially your own demise.

Excuse me, but that does indeed look like a threat of violence, not to us here which is probably what you were thinking I meant. Since there doesn't seem to be any argument to back up that assertion I can't really see it in any other light.
How do you expect there to be any compromise or even debate in the USA when the premise is that any conclusion that involves the enforcement of firearm restrictions, either universally or just to specific demographics, will automatically lead to a civil war. A discussion is supposed to move beyond simply making assertions.
Also disagreeing with your premise doesn't equal trolling.

belch · 2013-03-01, 09:08 AM

Originally Posted by ChipMHazard

...Also disagreeing with your premise doesn't equal trolling.

I just wanted to key in on that statement Chip.

When discussing political issues, most are apt to become emotional. Probably a good thing as one should be passionate about their beliefs. Disagreement with a concept that one holds dear is not likely to be met with applause. The tone for this discussion was set long before Helwyr or myself, or anyone else arguing against gun bans, joined the narrative.

That said, I agree with you...civil war would be horrible...for any reason.

ChipMHazard · 2013-03-01, 09:23 AM

Originally Posted by belch

I just wanted to key in on that statement Chip.

When discussing political issues, most are apt to become emotional. Probably a good thing as one should be passionate about their beliefs. Disagreement with a concept that one holds dear is not likely to be met with applause. The tone for this discussion was set long before Helwyr or myself, or anyone else arguing against gun bans, joined the narrative.

That said, I agree with you...civil war would be horrible...for any reason.

True enough and I agree. A discussion would be boring if we all had little to no emotion involved, one needs passion to defend ideals imo.

Helwyr · 2013-03-01, 05:05 PM

Originally Posted by belch

That said, I agree with you...civil war would be horrible...for any reason.

Actually it was me that made the statement that civil war would be awful, not Chip. I've seen nothing from Chip or Mietz indicating they're opposed to violence, so long as it's by the state.

I should have known better to even engage with them as soon as I saw they play PS2 on Miller (European server). Even Figment who I had a much more cordial discussion with was still rather pointless. Some people are just too far gone. If they really wanted to know what's going on in the world and understand other peoples points of view it might be worth taking the time to talk with them. But that doesn't look to be the case, they're willfully blind to anything that doesn't fit the narrative they've been taught to believe in. I've got better things to do than waste time on them.

Anyway, here's an image of recent gun violence a couple of hours drive from SOE's HQ in San Diego.

ChipMHazard · 2013-03-01, 06:22 PM

Originally Posted by Helwyr

Actually it was me that made the statement that civil war would be awful, not Chip. I've seen nothing from Chip or Mietz indicating they're opposed to violence, so long as it's by the state.

I should have known better to even engage with them as soon as I saw they play PS2 on Miller (European server). Even Figment who I had a much more cordial discussion with was still rather pointless. Some people are just too far gone. If they really wanted to know what's going on in the world and understand other peoples points of view it might be worth taking the time to talk with them. But that doesn't look to be the case, they're willfully blind to anything that doesn't fit the narrative they've been taught to believe in. I've got better things to do than waste time on them.

Yeah, yet you came to the conclusion that, that would be the only outcome from further gun restrictions. So you're dead set against a civil war ever happening, yet you're using it as the premise of your argument that there shouldn't be any further gun restrictions because that would indeed lead to a civil war. Never mind that stricter gun legislation might actually lead to less gun violence.
I guess that's morality out of the window then. Who wants to be bogged down by that anyway.
So me trying to make the argument that less gun violence would be a good thing now means that I am fine with gun violence as long as it's the government that is doing it? Me not thinking that wanton slaughter is something that should be enjoyed over a nice glass of Lindeman’s was just a ruse was it? I was just having you on while actually hiding my secret desire to see my fellow man gunned down by police officers for no apparent reason?
I have to state my surprise here. I did not know that I would be judged on something that I have not written. I also don't believe in the easter bunny if that has any bearing on the validity of my arguments or my motives.
But since you asked so nicely I will be happy to answer you. I do not endorse violence with fatal consequences of any kind unless it is in self defense, to defend someone else or if to otherwise survive, and I do not endorse unnecessary acts of violence.

So we're going down to that level now. Really? I did not know that me playing on an european server was of any significance here in this discussion. You know, I could actually be an american playing on the european server with my buds, yeah? Does the posibility of me being european bother you in some way? I do in fact live in Denmark, for whatever significance that might have on this discussion.
I also wasn't aware that I was blind to the real world. Me not being friendly? Ok, fair enough. I'm a bit of a jerk and I'm actually kinda fine with that.

That was your cop out then? Ok...

So let's see, so far I've noted the following fallacies from your resent posts.
Mind projection (You believe your world view to be the correct one), irrelevant conclusion (You judge me on something that I have not written), appeal to consequences (Individuals must be allowed to own firearms, otherwise there will be a civil war/attacks from the government.), appeal to fear (Gun restrictions will lead to a civil war, which we don't want.), appeal to motive (You belive that I endorse violence as long as it's done by the government.), and ad hominem (Me living in the EU is apparently of some consequence.)

Bear in mind this is not to discredit your arguments, it's not a red herring. If we're going to have something that resembles a civil discussion then it might be a good idea to avoid as many fallacies as possible, especially those which have a tendecy to shoot down any chance of having a discussion.

Figment · 2013-03-01, 06:55 PM

Originally Posted by Helwyr

I'm sorry but this statement just shows you don't have a clue what's going on in the world.

Or you're paranoid about what's going on in the world, nor a vision of how it coud be alternatively, just because your country is pretty fucked up at times and you at least know what "screwed up" is like and fear change.

But since there are no actual arguments made, just a claim, no reason to give this sentence any validity.

I'm not arguing semantics with collectivist authoritarians or their apologists.

lawl. You make it sound like there's only commies and commie apologists. I'm sorry mate, but you should get out of the 1960's already. The world moved on, including a lot of the US citizens who realised it's not just all commies out there, now it's your turn.

Individual rights and liberties aren't up for debate.

No RIGHTS are not (why is there no gay marriage in the entirety of the USA, if they're not up for debate btw?), but gun priviliges are. Guns are not a human right, no matter how hard you QQ about it. A child has no right to a gun, an 18 year old (or whatever rules apply) might have the privilige of owning one if it is granted by other people of their society.

Come for peoples guns in the US you best be prepared for many of them to use those guns. People aren't going to roll over so easily as they did in Australia, it will mean civil war.

And in Australia it was actually very effective at reducing the amount of deaths. Which is the greater evil over mere assaults IMO. In fact, the supposed rise may actually be caused by increased reports of other violent crimes, since people are likelier to report them, by actually surviving them: it doesn't mean the amount of incidents themselves increased. On top of that, registration of crime rules regularly change (stricter) during gun restriction law changes. You also seem to grossly overestimate the average US citizens. You think people would be happy to go to war over something like this? From either side?

They're not all nutters who think their guns are worth more than their own or other people's lives. In fact, chances are they would not want anything to do with it and just want their families to be save. Getting yourself shot (dead, or otherwise injured) in the process is not keeping your family save and simply isn't worth it.

Stop with the threats already (yes you do threaten with civil war) and behave civilly, instead of coming off like you're foaming at the mouth due to the exagerate display of passion mixed with paranoid claims and name calling (all the more reason to distrust you with guns, btw - not helping your position).

Figment · 2013-03-01, 07:13 PM

Originally Posted by Helwyr

I know many collectivist authoritarians that call themselves "liberals" and have never had so much as a real fist fight get aroused at the image of A1 Abrams tanks laying waste to some "red neck" gun rights people armed rifles while they sit back drinking cocktails watching it all on CNN. However, that's as much a fantasy as is the notion it will play out just like it did vs the British in 1776. All that military hardware isn't run by AI programs yet, and not all the military in the US are automatons.

First off, you would have failed in 1776 if it wern't for the French, Dutch and Spanish.

Second, your military campaign bordered complete failure for a long time.

Third, your populace eventually got rid of loyalists to establish a one sided tyranny where there was no place for pro-England folks. Who had every as much right as you to have those loyalties and built up lives and families in the colonies then as well. In fact, turns out your system is so tyrannical, no more than two parties can have a say in parliament and government. Call it a seesaw tyranny, but it's not a representative democracy which means parts of your populace are never, ever, heard. That's freedom?

Fourth, one of the main reasons to allow guns for citizens was to ensure slave owners and militia patrols could keep slaves in check.
http://truth-out.org/news/item/13890...eserve-slavery

That's right, you started off by establishing a government that wasn't for everyone. And then kept slavery and made sure the slave owners kept their guns to control the slaves.

Nice touch of tyranny. I'm sorry to desillusion you, but your country has had one of the longest lasting (in terms of modern times) governments of apartheid in the history of human kind, as well as not being less brutal than the Romans. Yes the Romans had gladiator slaves, but at least those could attain freedom and even achieve higher citizen ranks regardless of race. And guns (state - not national - militias aka slave patrols) were a large part of ensuring that it remained that way. In fact, the worst crimes were committed in the area where least law enforcement existed and the highest amount of guns were available: it wasn't called the Wild West for no reason. And what threats, foreign and domestic threat you think you had to protect yourself from? Foreign invasions, disobediant states and slave insurrections!

Btw, when some freed slaves did get access to guns in the early aftermaths of the civil war, they formed militias and pillaged and raped for revenge. And it's not like regulated militias were known for their lack of pillaging when not under tight discipline of a good, honourable commander. So much for simply using it defensively and maintaining rights and militias being there to protect the populace and rights.

But rather than having a pissing contest over who "wins" a potential civil war like it's another video game why not just acknowledge it would be absolutely awful for everyone involved, and start acknowledging what's leading us down that path in the first place.

Your gun ownership and refusal to abide to any democratically established laws that disagree with it and your threat to use force instead of abiding the law in case it is enforced? Mmm?

Maybe you should start questioning what's going on in the world and not look to government and their propaganda arm the mainstream media for all the answers. We're heading into very dark times, and I'm not talking about the swamps of Hossin. You people cheering on the gun grabbers in the US are hastening disaster and potentially your own demise.

Hahahahahahahaha.

You sound like a doomsday prepper. Ah alternative sources of news. So informed at all times just because they promote conspiracy theories.

No Helwyr, we're well ahead of you and we in the Netherlands are actually handing out more actual rights to humans than you lot in say the areas with the highest densities of guns and the strict biblical morals.

In fact, the south in the USA, where the most guns are, have historically, traditionaly and currently the least human rights per person in the USA.

Figment · 2013-03-01, 07:29 PM

Originally Posted by Helwyr

Actually it was me that made the statement that civil war would be awful, not Chip. I've seen nothing from Chip or Mietz indicating they're opposed to violence, so long as it's by the state.

I'm sorry, but your paranoid fear of governments seems to make you assume a whole lot more than you can back up. I've not seen any indication they would NOT be opposed to violence either (as you just claimed). In fact, one would argue that they'd not support government violence, since they also do not condone civilian violence and the very reason the guns would be restricted or "grabbed" as you so eloquently put it, is to reduce wanton slaughter.

Your claims are extremely weak and I hope you see that it's a bit of a large stretch too.

I should have known better to even engage with them as soon as I saw they play PS2 on Miller (European server). Even Figment who I had a much more cordial discussion with was still rather pointless. Some people are just too far gone. If they really wanted to know what's going on in the world and understand other peoples points of view it might be worth taking the time to talk with them.

Interesting you say that: we're in the "world out there" from your perspective, so how come we would not know what you know? In fact, given that the US media are domestically centered and the EU media worldwide centered, how can you claim we would know less than you? How would you verify this? Domestic sources that agree with you?

If you really wanted to know what's going on in the world, for instance Europe, shouldn't you... well... talk to us?

How often have you gone abroad? I've been to England, Wales, Germany, Belgium, Denmark, France, Spain, Malta, Italy, Croatia (pre-war), Switzerland, Austria, Luxembourg and Andorra.

I'd say I'd know if I ever felt cracked down upon by those governments. In fact, Croatia was the only time I felt somewhat restricted, since it was Tito's Yugoslavia then (Tito had just died) and tourists still hadn't full freedom. Plus it was the only time we did a bustour. Ugh. Talk about freedom limitation.

And when those guys all got guns and less state control: ETHNIC CIVIL WAR and incidentally those guns are now spilling over to criminals due to lack of gun control and enforcement. Balkan criminals are amongst the top purpatrators of violent crime (particularly bank and jewelry robberies) in the west of Europe.

Hooray for us.

Note: the rest of the criminals usualy don't even have handguns. Let alone military grade weapons like these Balkan syndicates (AK's and other stuff).

But that doesn't look to be the case, they're willfully blind to anything that doesn't fit the narrative they've been taught to believe in. I've got better things to do than waste time on them.

And you're not while you're actually DELIBERATELY COMPLETELY IGNORING ANY STATISTICS? Interesting view, but actually, has it occured to you YOU might be the one who's "willfully blind to anything that doesn't fit the narrative they've been taught to believe in"? ie. the "holy rights" of the second amendment NOBODY IS TO TOUCH because it's so sacred?

I'm sorry, but you're not making a strong case here.

Anyway, here's an image of recent gun violence a couple of hours drive from SOE's HQ in San Diego.

Nice. Do tell what gun owner would have stopped anyone from emptying a clip in the back of a vehicle like that?

Or was it in fact a gun owner that fired the shells? Whether attained legally or illegally?

Again, not making your case.

Helwyr · 2013-03-01, 09:07 PM

I guess Figment you didn't like that I said our previous discussion had been more cordial and you decided to completely spaz out on forums to not be outdone Chip and Mietz. There's all kinds of stupid coming out in your posts.. What's gay marriage got to do with this? If you must know I have nothing against two consenting adults making a contract such as marriage, it's not my business what they do, and nor is it government's business. I've lived in not just visited, England, Australia, Spain, Canada, USA, and briefly in West Africa.. does that info suddenly make a difference to you?

I don't share your statist collectivist view point or values, nor do an ever increasing number of other people, especially here in the US, deal with it.

Originally Posted by Figment

Nice. Do tell what gun owner would have stopped anyone from emptying a clip in the back of a vehicle like that?

Or was it in fact a gun owner that fired the shells? Whether attained legally or illegally?

Again, not making your case.

Thanks for demonstrating your ignorance so well in your response to that photo. You clearly know nothing about guns outside of video games, you don't follow what's going on in the US other than what's fed to you, and you don't care about the truth. Yup waste of time, what a shame.

ChipMHazard · 2013-03-01, 10:08 PM

Originally Posted by Helwyr

I guess Figment you didn't like that I said our previous discussion had been more cordial and you decided to completely spaz out on forums to not be outdone Chip and Mietz.

We aim to please

Helwyr · 2013-03-02, 12:46 AM

Originally Posted by ChipMHazard

We aim to please

We can already watch Piers Morgan on CNN, we don't need you guys. At least you ask good questions on FNO.

belch · 2013-03-02, 02:39 AM

Originally Posted by Helwyr

Actually it was me that made the statement that civil war would be awful, not Chip. I've seen nothing from Chip or Mietz indicating they're opposed to violence, so long as it's by the state.

I should have known better to even engage with them as soon as I saw they play PS2 on Miller (European server). Even Figment who I had a much more cordial discussion with was still rather pointless. Some people are just too far gone. If they really wanted to know what's going on in the world and understand other peoples points of view it might be worth taking the time to talk with them. But that doesn't look to be the case, they're willfully blind to anything that doesn't fit the narrative they've been taught to believe in. I've got better things to do than waste time on them.

Anyway, here's an image of recent gun violence a couple of hours drive from SOE's HQ in San Diego.

I hear you man. I admit it's hilarious watching someone that takes themselves so seriously (and expects everyone else to as well) come completely unglued and throw a tantrum. I hardly think you have fallen into that category.

Not everyone that's had a dog in this fight can make the same claim. But I digress.

Figment · 2013-03-02, 04:35 AM

Helwyr, you aren't using any arguments, high with the amount of text you write is quite an accomplishment. You are just spouting opinions, threats on what would happen and call them fact even though records and statistics everywhere disagree with you. The South in the USA was a police state thanks to the constitution of the USA. Don't believe me? Ask your fellow African-Americans ancestors. That constitution was written and amended to keep them under control by the founding fathers and to keep all the colonies on board.

Do you ever talk about that? No, you believe you know the motivations of the founding fathers, yet you do not learn about them yourself: you only parrot ht you have been taught. For the record, we don't get so indoctrinated with patriotism like you Americans. We don't have flags everywhere. We don't sing the national anthem at every ball games. Or each day in school. We arn't per definition loyal to any of two political parties like rabid fanboys. Over 47% of our populace isn't even religious.

People in your country on the other hand... And you aren't an exception, you are extremely dogmatic.

You don't back up anything, at all. Yet you continuously claim people don't know what they are talking about without demonstrating why. You continuously claim to know that everything is bad in Europe yet here the Europeans are all in disagreement with you. Why the fuck should we listen to you to tell us we have it so bad here if police violence and criminal violence in your country is among the worst in the world?

You continuously make a fool out of yourself tbh.