Justices Agree on Right to Own Guns

[Diuretic]

Now, how's this very interesting thread going? I hope it isn't going to end up being an insult-a-thon between RGS and me, so if someone has any other opinions on matters of substance I'd love to read them.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

To be blunt, I don't give a rat's

And that is the point. You lied about taking your own to task, I called you on it and you have proven the point. Thank you. That was my whole intent to begin with. Though you could have actually been telling the truth.

 

[Diuretic]

And that is the point. You lied about taking your own to task, I called you on it and you have proven the point. Thank you. That was my whole intent to begin with. Though you could have actually been telling the truth.

Lied? Me? Not at all, you weren't educated by the Jesuits were you? They have some very interesting ideas about lies.

But let me clarify one thing for you. I'm not in a team. I'm looking around my lounge room and I'm seeing....me. Looking for anyone else on my team....no, not there. Just me.

So, help me out here, where's "my own"?

No, you don't have to, I know what's happened. My cat's been online again hasn't she? I bet she's been posting here, heck, I changed the password, the little minx must have been watching. Okay, what did she post this time? Was she on about gun control? She has a thing about gun control, must be because she's a cat I suppose, probably got an ancestor or two with their skin adorning someone's lounge room floor. Did she do any good or did you take her logic apart?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Lied? Me? Not at all, you weren't educated by the Jesuits were you? They have some very interesting ideas about lies.

But let me clarify one thing for you. I'm not in a team. I'm looking around my lounge room and I'm seeing....me. Looking for anyone else on my team....no, not there. Just me.

So, help me out here, where's "my own"?

No, you don't have to, I know what's happened. My cat's been online again hasn't she? I bet she's been posting here, heck, I changed the password, the little minx must have been watching. Okay, what did she post this time? Was she on about gun control? She has a thing about gun control, must be because she's a cat I suppose, probably got an ancestor or two with their skin adorning someone's lounge room floor. Did she do any good or did you take her logic apart?

HAHA, as I suspected, you made a specific claim and now won't actually live up to it. And as I predicted you will obfusicate and ramble, playing what ever card you think will get you out of the situation or obscure it till it does not matter.

Tell ya what, it is best not to make statements you have no intention of living up to around me, cause I WILL call you on them. And you will look the fool.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Oi grumpy! Give me a chance! I'll take anyone on, friend or foe in they go, that's my motto.

Now, point me to the alleged comment and this time leave the bloody door open so I can at least get through.

I guess you didn't really say this did you?

 

[Diuretic]

I guess you didn't really say this did you?

Damn right I did, even though I do say so myself I thought the metaphor was spot on

My cat isn't big on metaphors, she's very, very - er - literal.

 

[Diuretic]

HAHA, as I suspected, you made a specific claim and now won't actually live up to it. And as I predicted you will obfusicate and ramble, playing what ever card you think will get you out of the situation or obscure it till it does not matter.

Tell ya what, it is best not to make statements you have no intention of living up to around me, cause I WILL call you on them. And you will look the fool.

Missed this, I hate getting things out of order. Hey you don't think I've got OCD or something do you?

Heck I may as well look the fool, I play it so well, don't you think?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Missed this, I hate getting things out of order. Hey you don't think I've got OCD or something do you?

Heck I may as well look the fool, I play it so well, don't you think?

Yup keep digging that hole.

 

[Diuretic]

Yup keep digging that hole.

Yep, you be careful just in case you fall in

 

[M14 Shooter]

Again... the Constitution says that if you rise up against the government, you're guilty of treason.... so how do the gun-lovers put that together with what they CLAIM is the justification for having guns (as unlikely an explanation as that may be).

The founding fathers recognized the right to revolution.
Its impossible to argue otherwise, given that they, thenmselves, exercised said right.

 

[M14 Shooter]

What sized unit uses Nukes? Using your definition every type of weapon ever used by the military is covered.

Hardly. My argument says no such thing.

So rather then argue the "company sized" bullshit, argue that militias can not own nor keep in peace time "strategic" arms or weapons.

No need.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Because those suggestions are out of context, I kept my argument on point.

And that's appreciated

But, I didnt see where you addressed my question that...
If we have firearms because we need to kill people, what argument is there that we do not then need the most effective means of doing so?

 

[Foxfyre]

M14Shooter is correct that our Founders recognized the right to revolution and in fact thought it might even be necessary from time to time. The success of their visionary experiment with a Democratic Republic has exceeded even their best hopes and dreams. I'm even going to stick my neck out here and suggest that our Second Amendment has contributed to the fact that there has not even been a serious attempted revolution in all this time. We certainly have had our more undesirable elements in society who thought such would have been a good thing.

To Diuretic, that link you provided to "Machiavelli and the
Moral Dilemma of Statecraft" is an interesting read. I have only glanced over it for highlights at present, but do plan to go back and read it more carefully. Some interesting concepts there though I'm not sure I will agree with the author on all points.

One line particularly stood out to me in my cursory examination however:

Thus, Machiavelli expects disarmed citizens to be vulnerable and insecure, which is precisely what statists and tyrants wish.

Here is precisely is the original argument for the Second Amendment and one that remains valid to this day.

 

[BrianH]

And that's appreciated

But, I didnt see where you addressed my question that...
If we have firearms because we need to kill people, what argument is there that we do not then need the most effective means of doing so?

I agree with your logic, but, people have been killing people way before guns were around. If someone wants to kill you, they'll find an effective means even if they don't have a gun. Before guns, people actually had to think up more brutal ways to kill/torture each other. At least with a gun, killing less brutal than tying someone up and slowly ripping them in half. I don't here about that nowdays.

I'll agree that guns are more effective, however, I don't believe that someone , who wanted to kill you, would not do it because they didn't have a gun. They'll find a way.

 

[Bern80]

My argument is based on necessity. You mightn't accept it, you mightn't agree with it but you can't refute it yet. Simply telling me about my argument is like telling me about my dress sense, it might be poor but you're not able to do anything about it.

And if I were you I'd rethink the analogy you're using.

Get this through your skull Diuretic. THE NECESSITY ARGUMENT DOES NOT WORK. Either you're interested in finding out why or you are content to stick your head in the sand. So far it appears to be the latter. It indeed has been refuted, successfully, by me and others in this thread. When put to straight questions on your asanine position you have ignored them, conveniently ommitted or simply refused to answer. You want public policy to reflect this opinion of yours yet you are unable to justify it. I don't know about Australia, but here when don't make laws based on opinions that can't be justified or defended.

I will ask again what is your justification for allowing me some things I don't need and not allowing me other things I don't need?

 

[Diuretic]

And that's appreciated

But, I didnt see where you addressed my question that...
If we have firearms because we need to kill people, what argument is there that we do not then need the most effective means of doing so?

Fair question.

In your question I suppose we're in difference over the meaning of "we". Your position is that "we" refers to all the citizenry, mine is that it refers to the military and certain units of police agencies.

In terms of "need", I see it differently from you. I see a need for the military and certain police units to have fully automatic weapons, I don't see a need for civilians and non-police civilians to own fully automatic weapons.
.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Fair question.
In your question I suppose we're in difference over the meaning of "we". Your position is that "we" refers to all the citizenry, mine is that it refers to the military and certain units of police agencies.

We, as in those of us in the citizenry.
We have firearms because we need to kill people, from time to time.

In terms of "need", I see it differently from you. I see a need for the military and certain police units to have fully automatic weapons, I don't see a need for civilians and non-police civilians to own fully automatic weapons.

OK, but... if we need to kill others, why not have the most effective means of doing so?
That is, why limit ones self to a particular weapon when there are others that are far better suited to the job? After all -- your life is on the line. You'll willingly take a lesser weapon when a better weapon is available?

 

[Diuretic]

Get this through your skull Diuretic. THE NECESSITY ARGUMENT DOES NOT WORK. Either you're interested in finding out why or you are content to stick your head in the sand. So far it appears to be the latter. It indeed has been refuted, successfully, by me and others in this thread. When put to straight questions on your asanine position you have ignored them, conveniently ommitted or simply refused to answer. You want public policy to reflect this opinion of yours yet you are unable to justify it. I don't know about Australia, but here when don't make laws based on opinions that can't be justified or defended.

I will ask again what is your justification for allowing me some things I don't need and not allowing me other things I don't need?

Bern....explain to me why the necessity argument doesn't work. I mean it would be useful for you to actually address my argument with your own counter-argument. You can claim it won't work but you have to show why you believe that, merely saying it isn't enough.

Now, on your need argument. "Need" has definitions in context. For example, all humans need air to breathe or we die. That's a basic need. I would think that's not disputed. But I'm not using the word "need" to refer to basic physiological needs because there's nothing voluntary or discretionary about needing air to breathe to stay alive.

I have been arguing through this thread several points. And since we're focused on automatic firearms let's stay there.

The purpose of a fully automatic firearm is to kill people. That's what they're designed to do.

I'm not up with the history of the development of firearms but I would hazard a guess that the very first firearms were made with the primary purpose of killing people. The recreational purposes of firearms which we're familiar with now probably emerged from the need to keep skills sharpened between military engagements. As firearms became cheaper and mass-produced then they could be used for recreational pursuits especially as ammunition would have been cheaper as well.

So, the point I'm making is that firearms were originally designed to kill people. I am speculating here but I would think that firearms manufacturers would have reacted to the secondary use - recreation - of firearms by making firearms which were intended not for killing people but for recreation.

Fully automatic firearms aren't made for recreational purposes, they're made for killing people. True, they can be used for other things, such as spraying an old car body (and I have made the point that controlled recreational use of fully automatic weapons is reasonable use).

This is where I get to need in the context of firearms.

.22 semi-auto pistol - designed for target shooting - need is target shooting.
.223 bolt action repeater rifle – designed for recreational use – need is recreational use
M-240 machine gun – designed for military use – need is military use

Pretty straightforward I would think.

Now if you want to get in to a debate over the various meanings of the word “need” that's fine but let's keep things in context. You may want a PS3 but you don't need one. In fact you probably don't need much of the stuff you have but your stuff meets your needs.

So, I've met your demands. Now, you've claimed to have refuted my points. Show me your proof.

 

[Diuretic]

We, as in those of us in the citizenry.
We have firearms because we need to kill people, from time to time.


OK, but... if we need to kill others, why not have the most effective means of doing so?
That is, why limit ones self to a particular weapon when there are others that are far better suited to the job? After all -- your life is on the line. You'll willingly take a lesser weapon when a better weapon is available?

How many times have you had to think about killing someone? I'm serious, that's not a rhetorical trick or being difficult.

In your second point you've assumed that there's a need to kill others (I'm assuming you mean the civilian non-police citizen has a need). How much of a need is there?

 

[manifold]

How long are you guys going to keep up this circular dance of disagreement?

It's been something like 20 pages of everyone making the same tired points over and over and over and over again and nobody actually considering the points that aren't their own.

Just sayin...