patrick.net

Goran_K says

So why not just ban blacks from having guns?

Some of us respect the Constitution and the principles of our country including the 14th Amendment.

Goran_K says

So I need a very strong argument to curb a civil liberty.

The liberty to possess guns infringes upon the liberty of others to live. That's a damn strong argument, and it's backed up with plenty of empirical evidence.

Just think about it this way. The liberty to possess nuclear weapons infringes upon the liberty of others to live. You believe that and there is damn little evidence to support that statement while there are mountains of evidence to support the similar statement about guns. The number of people murdered with guns far exceeds those murdered with nukes but only because people don't have easy access to nuclear weapons.

errc says

When everything is a crime, everyone is a criminal

Actually, that statement is empirically false, and it is important to understand why.

Many states, including the U.S., over-criminalize things and then selectively enforce the law. In essence, every citizen commits a dozen crimes a day simply by going through the motions of living. The police can then use those crimes to punish people for completely unrelated things like political views, personal grudges, sexual rivalry, or anything else. Every person is a criminal, but only the tiniest percentages of crimes are prosecuted, and then not for the sake of the crime, but for unrelated personal reasons.

It is illegal to have oral sex with your spouse in some states. Flirting or kissing for too long is also illegal in some places. Such laws are always highly selectively enforced.

Politicians can and do pass laws for perverted reasons. The entire War on Drugs was created solely to prevent minorities from voting and to demonize them. It is continued for other perverted reasons including profiting at the expense of the victims of that war. Cops, prosecutors, and judges fully take advantage of selective enforcement and arbitrary and inconsistent sentencing to push tribal, personal, and political agendas.

Discretion in the law invites corruption and abuse.

Dan8267 says

The liberty to possess guns infringes upon the liberty of others to live.

It does? How?

Dan8267 says

The liberty to possess guns infringes upon the liberty of others to live.

How the fuck? The mere possession of the weapon does not infringe on anything.

Straw Man says

How the fuck? The mere possession of the weapon does not infringe on anything.

So then you would have no problem with U.S. citizens or foreigners having nuclear weapons? Somehow, I think not.

Drunk driving infringes upon the rights of others by risking their safety. Same can be said of possessing weapons. Would you say that your right to safety is not infringed upon if random individuals around the world had doomsday devices capable of destroying the entire world at the push of a button? Would they have to actually push the button before the law could take action? Would you OK with North Korea or ISIS having nukes since neither has ever used one yet?

Dan8267 says

Drunk driving infringes upon the rights of others by risking their safety. Same can be said of possessing weapons.

Possession of cars infringes upon the right of others by risking their safety. Same can be said of drunk shooting.

See, I can play this idiotic game too.

Dan8267 says

So then you would have no problem with U.S. citizens or foreigners having nuclear weapons? Somehow, I think not.

It's funny that the only way you can keep your point salient is by mentioning "bearable nuclear weapons". Don't you think that's sort of telling?

Dan8267 says

Goran_K has repeatedly demonstrated himself to be an ideologue in this thread. He cannot be reasoned with. He can only be exposed as the ideologue he is. That is the only purpose of this thread.

I'm an ideologue because I'm asking you to explain your ideas?

So does smoking dope and driving...
add that shit into the equation.
Dan8267 says

Drunk driving infringes upon the rights of others by risking their safety.

Gun crime, murder by firearm in particular, is overwhelmingly a crime of the black inner city. It is too complex to solve the societal drivers of this fact so they default to reducing all of our liberties. I live in an area with a murder rate equivalent to Finland. You could come up here and take all of our fucking guns (as Diane Frankenstein would love to have it) and the crime rate would not budge, here or in Oakland.

Dan8267 says

Some of us respect the Constitution and the principles of our country including the 14th Amendment.

But not the 2nd?

Straw Man says

Possession of cars infringes upon the right of others by risking their safety. Same can be said of drunk shooting.

Really? So you are saying that either
- we should not allow cars at all
or
- we should allow drunk driving

Well, evidently the entire fucking world disagrees with you.

We make driving sober legal and driving drunk illegal. Do I really have to explain to your peanut brain why? Please say yes and I will. Or you can demonstrate some level of intelligence by explaining why yourself and thus why you are wrong.

Dan8267 says

We make driving sober legal and driving drunk illegal. Do I really have to explain to your peanut brain why? Please say yes and I will. Or you can demonstrate some level of intelligence by explaining why yourself and thus why you are wrong.

Cool. So we make lawful self defense legal, and gun murder illegal. Everything's good now.

Goran_K says

It's funny that the only way you can keep your point salient is by mentioning "bearable nuclear weapons".

Showing the logical conclusion of a statement, including all edge cases, demonstrates whether or not the statement is true. If a statement results in inescapable and ridiculous consequences, then the statement is ridiculous no matter how sensible it appears at first glance.

For example, the statement "babies who die go to heaven" may seem reasonable at first glance. However, the consequence of the statement is that allowing babies to live risks their eternal torment in hell and the best thing you can do for babies is to immediate kill them and send them to heaven. Thus, either murdering babies is a good thing or the premise "babies who die go to heaven" is wrong. It is completely valid to point out that the consequences of a premise are rejected by those making the premise. If you don't accept the consequences of your premise, then you are rejecting your premise. So why should I accept it?

Goran_K says

I'm an ideologue because I'm asking you to explain your ideas?

No. You are an ideologue because you ignore and discard any evidence that contradicts your dogma while cherry picking and distorting evidence to support that dogma.

BlueSardine says

So does smoking dope and driving...

add that shit into the equation.

The premise, right or wrong, that being high on pot affects driving is the reason it is illegal to drive under the influence of pot. Regardless of the truth of the premise, the logical form confirms my point. You do not have the right to avoidable and significant force risk unto other people against their will.

Goran_K says

Nuclear weapons are indiscriminate, they are not "bearable arms", and are not weapons of "self defense"

1. The Second Amendment says nothing about "self-defense".
2. All offensive weapons are defensive weapons. Nuclear arms especially so. It's called MAD, mutually assured destruction, and it's been the basis of preventing WWIII for the past 70 years.
3. Nuclear weapons are most certainly bearable. One can detonate a nuke in a suitcase, a so-called snuke.
4. There is nothing that draws a special line separating guns from all other types of arms including nuclear weapons. Arms fill a continuous and gradient space of weaponry. Guns are in no way inherently distinguishable from all other kinds of weapons and thus do not deserve any special kind of treatment. This is exactly why the Second Amendment says "arms" and not "guns". Any Second Amendment protection would apply to all arms including nuclear bombs as much as it applies to guns. This is why the Second Amendment is a bullshit deprecated amendment. It just hasn't been officially revoked due to politics. In practice, it was revoked a century or more ago.

Suitcase nuclear weapons?

Oh boy.

Goran_K says

I believe Americans should have weaponry necessary to the preservation of a free state. I do not think Nuclear weapons, Biological weapons fall under this statement.

Then you are a delusional fool. If the American public had to rebel against the federal government to restore freedom, they would need weapons that could level Cheyenne mountain. That's at least a MOAB if not a nuke.

The American citizens would need tanks, land mines, rocket-powered grenades, supersonic aircraft, and aircraft carriers to fight the federal government, which has all of these things in abundance.

Only the biggest fool in the world thinks that unfunded civilians with guns can take on a trillion dollar a year war machine. It would be a masquerader if you even tried to take on a state government with the pitiful guns you have. Don't believe me, try it. You'll find out how quick suicide by cop is.

The idea that men with pistols and AK-47s could overthrow a corrupt federal government is a ridiculous fantasy. Those weapons don't work on the Apache helicopters that kill your family from miles away using
- 30 mm articulated cannons
- 1,200 high-explosive rounds fire in less than 2 minutes
- 70 mm rockets that can be guided or unguided
- Hellfire missiles that can identify, track, and hunt targets that are miles away, even in the dead of night

Yeah, you really stand a fucking chance. An eight-year-old gamer could take out your entire resistance in five minutes with one of these.

Goran_K says

Dan8267 says

Some of us respect the Constitution and the principles of our country including the 14th Amendment.

But not the 2nd?

Like I said, the Second Amendment is defunct. If it weren't, you could have land mines, Hellfire missles, ICBMs, and nukes.

So yes, I have no respect for the Second Amendment. It would be a death sentence to the entire human race if applied today, and you clearly realize that. The founding fathers weren't so fucking stupid that they would think of applying it to our time. No one is that stupid.

I respect the entire rest of the Constitution, which still applies, or at least should, today.

Dan8267 says

Then you are a delusional fool. If the American public had to rebel against the federal government to restore freedom, they would need weapons that could level Cheyenne mountain. That's at least a MOAB if not a nuke.

The American citizens would need tanks, land mines, rocket-powered grenades, supersonic aircraft, and aircraft carriers to fight the federal government, which has all of these things in abundance.

Only the biggest fool in the world thinks that unfunded civilians with guns can take on a trillion dollar a year war machine. It would be a masquerader if you even tried to take on a state government with the pitiful guns you have. Don't believe me, try it. You'll find out how quick suicide by cop is.

The idea that men with pistols and AK-47s could overthrow a corrupt federal government is a ridiculous fantasy. Those weapons don't work on the Apache helicopters that kill your family from miles away using

- 30 mm articulated cannons

- 1,200 h...

Just like the might of that $1 trillion dollar machine was able to do so to Al Qaeda, ISIS, Al Nusra, which eventually lead to the downfall of Islamic Extremism all over the world.

Goran_K says

No, once they deploy Apaches, you use your AR15 to go attack an arms depot, and you get some stingers.

That has to be the stupidest thing you have said so far. By then, it's too late. A government that is cracking down on its civilian population isn't going to let that population obtain arms that would threaten it. If the damn local gun store doesn't carry stingers now, then it isn't going to get them when the tanks start rolling.

Dan8267 says

That has to be the stupidest thing you have said so far. By then, it's too late. A government that is cracking down on its civilian population isn't going to let that population obtain arms that would threaten it. If the damn local gun store doesn't carry stingers now, then it isn't going to get them when the tanks start rolling.

So ISIS, Al Qaeda, running around with all those tricked out M4s, shoulder mounted anti-armor missiles, M1 Abrams tanks, and artillery created that themselves? I thought they captured them...

Goran_K says

5,000 armed citizens could absolutely take a weapons depot.

Any tyrannical state would simply simply kill all 5,000 armed citizens and destroy the depot using a missile or the MOAB. This would be trivial for our federal government to do. This is what would happen to your armed rebellion.

www.youtube.com/embed/j0BG_GBOFTw

Our government has no problem using such weapons for "their psychological effect" or what is commonly referred to as terrorism, the infliction of terror into a population to coerce submission. They use such weapons precisely to convince the opposition that there is no hope for victory. They would gladly use it to kill your rebel scum just to turn those rebels into an example for the rest of the population.

Dan8267 says

Our government has no problem using such weapons for "their psychological effect" or what is commonly referred to as terrorism, the infliction of terror into a population to coerce submission. They use such weapons precisely to convince the opposition that there is no hope for victory. They would gladly use it to kill your rebel scum just to turn those rebels into an example for the rest of the population.

Historically, Operation Linebacker only emboldened Vietnamese resistance.

Goran_K says

I would engage in guerrilla warfare and target convoys.

You would die in the first week when some navy seal sniper shoots your head off. No matter how tyrannical the government was, you'd be made out to be a terrorist and the guy who murdered you would be made out to be a hero. Strategist would be singing that guy's praises. That's reality.

Dan8267 says

You would die in the first week when some navy seal sniper shoots your head off. No matter how tyrannical the government was, you'd be made out to be a terrorist and the guy who murdered you would be made out to be a hero. Strategist would be singing that guy's praises. That's reality.

I wouldn't be around when the IED went off. How would he shoot my head off?

Goran_K says

Just like the might of that $1 trillion dollar machine was able to do so to Al Qaeda, ISIS, Al Nusra, which eventually lead to the downfall of Islamic Extremism all over the world.

New York City and Afghanistan are very different places. And the federal government, like all power structures, will do far more to defend itself from an existential threat like domestic rebellion than some minor threat like ISIS, and yes, ISIS is a minor threat compared to an American rebellion.

In any case, ISIS isn't ever going to take down the U.S. government. The very idea is ridiculous. You are claiming the ability to take down that very government with some guns and stingers, which you can't have under your own rules. You conceded that you would not let Americans buy stingers today.

Dan8267 says

New York City and Afghanistan are very different places. And the federal government, like all power structures, will do far more to defend itself from an existential threat like domestic rebellion than some minor threat like ISIS, and yes, ISIS is a minor threat compared to an American rebellion.

In any case, ISIS isn't ever going to take down the U.S. government. The very idea is ridiculous. You are claiming the ability to take down that very government with some guns and stingers, which you can't have under your own rules. You conceded that you would not let Americans buy stingers today.

All of that hardware could be taken. If ISIS was able to steal M1 Abrams tanks, then Stingers would certainly be possible.

Also, the majority of the military is not only right wing conservative but also believers in the 2nd Amendment. 60% + of the military would side with the rebels against a Democrat leftist despot confiscating arms.

Goran_K says

Also, the majority of the military is not only right wing conservative but also believers in the 2nd Amendment.

Whether or not they believe in the Second Amendment is irrelevant. They will still kill you and your entire family when given the order, and they would do so with a smile on their face. If you think the military is going to side with the rebels when they are attacked by those rebels while defending a weapons depot, you are batshit crazy. You are a terrorist to them regardless of how right you are. You are a criminal to the police force as well. The government would enforce law and order and curfews, and arrest you as a criminal or kill you as a terrorist without a second thought. And there is nothing you could do about it. You are fantasizing.

Dan8267 says

Whether or not they believe in the Second Amendment is irrelevant. They will still kill you and your entire family when given the order, and they would do so with a smile on their face. If you think the military is going to side with the rebels when they are attacked by those rebels while defending a weapons depot, you are batshit crazy. You are a terrorist to them regardless of how right you are. You are a criminal to the police force as well. The government would enforce law and order and curfews, and arrest you as a criminal or kill you as a terrorist without a second thought. And there is nothing you could do about it. You are fantasizing.

Yes they would shoot ME dead, but would they shoot their brother, or father, best friend? This is the type of dilemma many faced during the 1st Civil War as families chose sides on either the Union or Confederate side.

Goran_K says

Yes they would shoot ME dead, but would they shoot their brother, or father, best friend?

They won't have to. You'll be oppressed, the keys to power won't be.

Liberals support repeal of second amendment, go live in North Korea and see how that kind of society works out.

I would think that here in Baltimore, an AK-47 wouldn't be enough. I'd need a M-134

http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/26/politics/baltimore-crime-fbi-help/index.html

Baltimore asks FBI for help: 'Murder is out of control'

Then the stupid mayor blames guns.

Goran_K says

You've presented many "opinions", including stories about suitcase nuclear weapons.

How the fuck is the possibility of a suitcase size nuclear weapon an "opinion"? It is a reality. Just because that reality makes your proposition ridiculously dangerous does not mean it's not a reality.

Are you seriously trying to argue that a suitcase size nuclear weapon is impossible to make today? The Pentagon strongly disagrees with you. It's been a threat on their radar for decades.

Goran_K says

But you still haven't explained why the 20th century is replete with governments that have gone usurpatious and began their despotic reigns with arms confiscations.

Some X did Y therefore everyone who does X will do Y. This is your fallacy. Expressed mathematically it's

I should not have to explain to anyone why this predicate is wrong, but evidently I have to.

There are tyrants who wear mustaches. Therefore, all people with mustaches are tyrants. This is mathematically equivalent to what you are saying. It's obviously wrong.

I could apply your false theorem to a great many things. All tyrannical regimes tax their populations to support themselves. The U.S. government taxes its population to support itself. Therefore, the United States government is a tyrannical regime. So why aren't you fighting to overthrow it right now?

Criminals use guns to commit violent crimes like rape, murder, and robbery. Therefore all persons possessing guns are criminals who rape, murder, and rope. Therefore all guns should be banned. See, it works against your political agenda just as well as it supports your political agenda. That's the thing about false theorems; they can easily be used to both prove and disprove the same statement precisely because they are false.

And again, you are avoiding a core issue. There is nothing special about guns. Nothing. Every government, tyrannical or not, is also going to prevent its citizens from having land mines, tanks, RPGs, stinger missiles, nukes, and biological weapons. Does any government preventing citizens from having these weapons make that government tyrannical? Then why the fuck guns? What's so god damn special about guns that makes it different from any other weapon that has ever or will ever be created? Nothing. Any dogmatic statement that you make about guns, you'd better be able to defend applying to all other weapons including nukes.

FortWayne says

Liberals support repeal of second amendment, go live in North Korea and see how that kind of society works out.

False equivalency. North Korea is a tyrannical state because the government is not answerable to the people by law. The policies that made North Korea or any other tyrannical state oppressive are exactly the kind of policies implemented by the USA Patriotic Act and the NDAA. Every executive power signed into law is a step towards greater tyranny. Every liberal policy distributing power to the common man, creating transparency, and limiting the use and power of police forces and the military is a step away from tyranny. North Korea is what America would become if Republican polices were left unchecked and unchallenged.

Dan8267 says

That would happen in America as well.

I have walked around town with a sheathed 22 inch fiskars clearing machete on my belt and have never been shot, or looked at with a discerning eye. Maybe in your City Metro area where everyone cries and screams when they see a picture of a long blade or gun. Not everywhere is like where you live though, surprising as that may sound.

I don't want to talk about another tangent. I want to know why you think an unarmed populace is a good check against Tyranny.

That's like saying having a "Gun Free Zone" sign is a deterrent to a potential mass shooter.

Lashkar_i_Trumpi says

Ghandi was irrelevant after 1942. He was also a major bigot against blacks and Jews and Sikhs. The latter in particular is never contextualized in popular histories of Ghandi, why he embraced Muslims but hated Sikhism.

Exactly. Without the INA and other nationalist leaders, Ghandi is a foot note in history. Leftist love Ghandi because of the ideas he represented, but the reality on the ground was that Ghandi's actual contributions towards the independence movement were very small, if not completely inconsequential.