Poll: Do you Support Assault Weapons Ban?

  1. #61021
    Herald of the Titans
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    2,821
    Quote Originally Posted by Doctor Amadeus View Post
    If you or someone else can legislate another person rights. I would argue no they aren't. The constitution shouldn't be up for debate. It's philosophical point of view. The spirit was inspired by lack of recognizing a natural right.
    So... slavery should still be legal.
    This is what you're saying with the bolded part of your argument.
    - Lars

  2. #61022
    Quote Originally Posted by UnifiedDivide View Post
    The discussion around "natural rights" is possibly some of the dumbest shit I've ever read on this site.
    Well considering the source that is actually quite disturbing.

  3. #61023
    Void Lord Doctor Amadeus's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    In Security Watching...
    Posts
    43,694
    Quote Originally Posted by Muzjhath View Post
    So... slavery should still be legal.
    This is what you're saying with the bolded part of your argument.
    No it means, that I don't think it should have required a document or piece of paper to observe that black people should not be slaves. I also recognize that while many fought to change that, despite what was written, it still took a long time after to realize it after it was written.

    Human beings are free by nature, the only time they are not free is by other people who attempt to set those conditions. But if it's natural, it's a right, and you aren't going to stop it. The constitution is a tool and frame work, and promise by all to recognize that under the democracy because they want to, not because you or anyone else says so alone.
    Milli Vanilli, Bigger than Elvis

  4. #61024
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    78,898
    Quote Originally Posted by Doctor Amadeus View Post
    No it means, that I don't think it should have required a document or piece of paper to observe that black people should not be slaves. I also recognize that while many fought to change that, despite what was written, it still took a long time after to realize it after it was written.
    Not that many. Slavery was written into and protected by the Constitution even before the Bill of Rights was added. If you think the Constitution shouldn't ever be changed, then you're implicitly making a pro-slavery argument. Which, to be clear, I don't say to try and argue that you're pro-slavery. I say it to point out you can't actually push the nonsense idea that the Constitution and the phrasing it contained was in any way perfect and should not be changed. Including later Amendments, like the 2nd. You can not WANT that to be changed, but the claim that it SHOULDN'T due to being part of the Constitution and the intent of the Founding Fathers, that's not an argument you agree with and kindly stop lying to people's faces about it.

    Human beings are free by nature, the only time they are not free is by other people who attempt to set those conditions.
    I mean, tell that to the cave bear that ate one of your ancestors. Where was his victim's "natural right to life"?

    But if it's natural, it's a right, and you aren't going to stop it.
    See, that's a phrase that's just abject nonsense. The right to bear arms is as "natural" a right as the right to own and beat your slaves. As established in the same document. If you're claiming the first can't be wrongheaded and needing to be changed because it's "natural", then you're implicitly arguing the same for enslaving other human beings.

    If that bothers you, stop making the shitty argument that says that.

    The constitution is a tool and frame work, and promise by all to recognize that under the democracy because they want to, not because you or anyone else says so alone.
    Tell that to black people for most of the USA's history.


  5. #61025
    Herald of the Titans
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    2,821
    Quote Originally Posted by Doctor Amadeus View Post
    No it means, that I don't think it should have required a document or piece of paper to observe that black people should not be slaves. I also recognize that while many fought to change that, despite what was written, it still took a long time after to realize it after it was written.

    Human beings are free by nature, the only time they are not free is by other people who attempt to set those conditions. But if it's natural, it's a right, and you aren't going to stop it. The constitution is a tool and frame work, and promise by all to recognize that under the democracy because they want to, not because you or anyone else says so alone.
    That isn't the argument you were making.

    Read what you wrote about the constitution. Read the constitution and how it works. Either accept that you made the argument that Slavery is fine and Slaves ought to count as 3/5th of a Person.
    Or change your argument.

    As the Bill of Rights wasn't even part of the Constitution (Even if it was a part of the constitution that got ratified). So it was a changed documment.

    Same as the majority of the founding fathers were absolutely pro-slavery. Some were abolitionists. Those were a minority. There was a fairly large grouping who mostly didn't care one way or another. All of whom were against slaves being counted as "people" at all when it came to how many electoral votes ought to exist.
    - Lars

  6. #61026
    Void Lord Doctor Amadeus's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    In Security Watching...
    Posts
    43,694
    Quote Originally Posted by Muzjhath View Post
    That isn't the argument you were making.

    Read what you wrote about the constitution. Read the constitution and how it works. Either accept that you made the argument that Slavery is fine and Slaves ought to count as 3/5th of a Person.
    Or change your argument.

    As the Bill of Rights wasn't even part of the Constitution (Even if it was a part of the constitution that got ratified). So it was a changed documment.

    Same as the majority of the founding fathers were absolutely pro-slavery. Some were abolitionists. Those were a minority. There was a fairly large grouping who mostly didn't care one way or another. All of whom were against slaves being counted as "people" at all when it came to how many electoral votes ought to exist.
    Well we are talking about two different fundamental principles, but they are related. Your natural rights, actual rights, aren't things as I said someone has to give you, therefor you can't really take them away, at least not unless you deprive them of life itself.

    This is important, and while it may seem philosophical it isn't in reality. There are just certain things you have the right to, because they have nothing to do with me supplying them and without them you would die not YOU YOU, I am speaking Generically when I say this.


    Now as this relates to the Constitution, The Constitution is a literal form, it's an oath, verified and realized by action. The document itself is nothing without we the people. Not a King, no rule, but the citizens.

    Now we KNOW that we as people haven't always lived up to that promise, but the amendments and bill of rights as it relates to a country. That is a tool that allows not for us as people to get out of our agreements. It's a vehicle to modify them.

    Black people were always fucking human beings before it was put to paper, slavery was never a right by anyone, this is what that means. Ideals and principles vs theory and practice.


    I'll give you another example, of a condition more literal. In the military especially in war, just because someone is say advanced to the Rank of Captain hypothetically, It doesn't mean regardless to rules, ore repercussions that everyone is going to listen or follow. They likely will, do to the institution.

    But the point is people don't always do what the are supposed to.


    The Constitution said slavery is over, that black were equal under the law. They didn't become realized just because it was on paper and it was official. If people don't recognize it rule or no, it isn't going to work.


    It's why we have wars, it's why we fought a Civil War, because ideas aren't settled because it's put to paper. And as I said some things never need to be, like natural rights, which is where our laws come from.


    Bottom line the Constitution is also about a trust, which is why to change it requires so much effort. If it didn't in theory it is a pivilege.


    The way SOME talk about the constitution despite what it says, they view it as a privilege. That they can take away from someone because they don't like them.

    That isn't how the law works or natural law, even if they aren't the same thing, they are related.
    Last edited by Doctor Amadeus; 2023-03-17 at 06:46 PM.
    Milli Vanilli, Bigger than Elvis

  7. #61027
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    78,898
    Quote Originally Posted by Doctor Amadeus View Post
    Well we are talking about two different fundamental principles, but they are related. Your natural rights, actual rights, aren't things as I said someone has to give you, therefor you can't really take them away, at least not unless you deprive them of life itself.
    1> If they weren't given to you, they wouldn't exist. This is what you don't get. A "right" doesn't exist until law is crafted to grant and protect that right. Feel free to debunk this by pointing to the identifiable, observable phenomena in nature that describes human rights.

    2> Since this clearly isn't even true of the 2nd Amendment in the USA, which absolutely can be taken from you, it isn't even relevant to the thread.

    Now as this relates to the Constitution, The Constitution is a literal form, it's an oath, verified and realized by action. The document itself is nothing without we the people. Not a King, no rule, but the citizens.
    This contradicts itself. It's a law, like any other law. The most base law which other law cannot contradict, but still just a law.

    The people, individually speaking, do not get any say in this. Their government, literally the "rule" you try to claim doesn't support the Constitution, is what enshrines and protects the Constitution. If the "people" want to change the Constitution, they have to change the government first, do it will make the changes they desire.

    Black people were always fucking human beings before it was put to paper, slavery was never a right by anyone, this is what that means. Ideals and principles vs theory and practice.
    This is objectively false, and worse, it's vile historical revisionism. Right up there with "The Nazis just wanted to make Germany great again". Slavery was absolutely and explicitly protected by the Constitution even before the Bill of Rights was established, and black people were objectively not considered to be equal persons under the law. They were livestock. They were not protected by the Constitution until 1868, really, emancipation just abolished slavery, it didn't grant them citizenship rights.

    Learn your own damned history.

    I'll give you another example, of a condition more literal. In the military especially in war, just because someone is say advanced to the Rank of Captain hypothetically, It doesn't mean regardless to rules, ore repercussions that everyone is going to listen or follow. They likely will, do to the institution.
    There's such a thing as unlawful orders, which applies to everyone. But if you refuse a lawful order from a Captain, you're gonna be up on charges and potentially executed, if it's in a time of war.

    The Constitution said slavery is over, that black were equal under the law. They didn't become realized just because it was on paper and it was official. If people don't recognize it rule or no, it isn't going to work.
    This is literally, definitively incorrect. The Constitution said nothing of the sort until 1865; the 13th Amendment partially banned slavery, but did not grant any equality under the law to blacks, who still could not become citizens. The 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, was what granted blacks citizenship, but still didn't come anywhere close to granting them equality under the law. The 15th granted them the right to vote, though historically many means were found to effect such restrictions Constitutionally. It wasn't until the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that black Americans finally had nominal equality under the law. And that's not even in the Constitution. Which was totally fine with Jim Crow laws for nearly a century before the CRA of '68.

    Are you seriously this badly misinformed about basic American history? Or are you just lying, openly and shamelessly?


  8. #61028
    Quote Originally Posted by Doctor Amadeus View Post
    The Constitution said slavery is over, that black were equal under the law.
    It makes zero explicit mention of slavery, actually. And it makes no such claim.

    For someone who has a lot of strong opinions on the US Constitution and Bill of Rights, you seem to have very little understanding of either.

  9. #61029
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    78,898
    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    It makes zero explicit mention of slavery, actually.
    Well . . .

    Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3;

    "No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due."

    "Held to service or labour" means "enslaved"; it's just alternate language for the same thing. There's a couple other even less direct clauses, mostly left out today since they were retroactively rendered null by the 13th Amendment.


  10. #61030
    Not to get off-topic, but that's implicit vs. explicit. The three-fifths clause is similarly an implicit statement of it (though expands beyond that including counting Native peoples rofl).

    Just wild that people who so strongly cling to the Second Amendment seem to have such woefully little understanding of the document that it is Amending.

  11. #61031
    Void Lord Doctor Amadeus's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    In Security Watching...
    Posts
    43,694
    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    It makes zero explicit mention of slavery, actually. And it makes no such claim.

    For someone who has a lot of strong opinions on the US Constitution and Bill of Rights, you seem to have very little understanding of either.
    I have a great understanding for both the spirit and the letter.

    The constitution doesn’t explicitly right down everything that is a right. It includes what we agree upon as right.

    People still had rights before the constitution.

    If you understood that you’d know why you’re wrong.

    The entire civil rights movement wasn’t about not having rights alone. It was about realizing and recognizing those rights.

    The fact that some rights have to be written at all is a failure of us as humans. But that’s not a conversation you’re anywhere close to having.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    Not to get off-topic, but that's implicit vs. explicit. The three-fifths clause is similarly an implicit statement of it (though expands beyond that including counting Native peoples rofl).

    Just wild that people who so strongly cling to the Second Amendment seem to have such woefully little understanding of the document that it is Amending.
    No it’s you that doesn’t understand because you’re the one taking about taking people’s rights away. By that I mean putting conditions on them at all which can and is looked at as you just trying to find one more layer to your agenda that’s Completely ignoring the rights over all.

    No. You’re not taking my guns. I don’t need to give you a reason to exercise my rights. And no I don’t believe you give two shits about me or anyone else.

    This is a power move and because I said so. That can kick rocks.
    Milli Vanilli, Bigger than Elvis

  12. #61032
    Quote Originally Posted by Doctor Amadeus View Post
    I have a great understanding for both the spirit and the letter.
    All evidence points to the opposite.

    Quote Originally Posted by Doctor Amadeus View Post
    The constitution doesn’t explicitly right down everything that is a right. It includes what we agree upon as right.
    Like what? List a few that we all agree on that exist as rights without being explicitly written down?

    Quote Originally Posted by Doctor Amadeus View Post
    People still had rights before the constitution.
    They have in some times and places, yeah. Nobody has claimed the Constitution created rights.

    Quote Originally Posted by Doctor Amadeus View Post
    If you understood that you’d know why you’re wrong.
    "If you understood you'd agree with me, but I won't explain it to you." isn't a good argument.

    Quote Originally Posted by Doctor Amadeus View Post
    The entire civil rights movement wasn’t about not having rights alone. It was about realizing and recognizing those rights.
    No, that was literally people protesting and dying to get equally protected rights. In writing. And we still have a ways to go on this front.

    Quote Originally Posted by Doctor Amadeus View Post
    The fact that some rights have to be written at all is a failure of us as humans. But that’s not a conversation you’re anywhere close to having.
    No, that's how rights work. We're not a hive-mind, we can't telepathically communicate rights.

    Quote Originally Posted by Doctor Amadeus View Post
    No it’s you that doesn’t understand because you’re the one taking about taking people’s rights away.
    Yes, just like the 13th Amendment took away peoples rights to own slaves. How terrible it was that peoples rights to own people were taken away. Dreadful.

    Apparently, according to your posts at least which simply decry the removal of a right in general.

    Quote Originally Posted by Doctor Amadeus View Post
    By that I mean putting conditions on them at all which can and is looked at as you just trying to find one more layer to your agenda that’s Completely ignoring the rights over all.
    This is a generally correct, but largely imprecise summation of my views. Credit for trying, but this is not a passing grade for an attempt to restate my position.

    Quote Originally Posted by Doctor Amadeus View Post
    No. You’re not taking my guns.
    Great news: I don't want to as a general rule.

    Quote Originally Posted by Doctor Amadeus View Post
    And no I don’t believe you give two shits about me or anyone else.
    The irony of this statement is not lost on me.

  13. #61033
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    78,898
    Quote Originally Posted by Doctor Amadeus View Post
    I have a great understanding for both the spirit and the letter.

    The constitution doesn’t explicitly right down everything that is a right. It includes what we agree upon as right.

    People still had rights before the constitution.

    If you understood that you’d know why you’re wrong.
    Because they had rights under the British Bill of Rights of 1689. Those rights weren't magically floating around the natural ether.

    No it’s you that doesn’t understand because you’re the one taking about taking people’s rights away. By that I mean putting conditions on them at all which can and is looked at as you just trying to find one more layer to your agenda that’s Completely ignoring the rights over all.
    For the fourth time; can an ex-felon with a long history of violence and diagnosed mental health problems legally buy a gun?

    Yes or no?


  14. #61034
    Void Lord Doctor Amadeus's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    In Security Watching...
    Posts
    43,694
    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    All evidence points to the opposite.
    You're say so alone is not evidence.



    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    Like what? List a few that we all agree on that exist as rights without being explicitly written down?
    We don't have to agree on a right, that is what makes it a right. It isn't something one has control over or should as it applies to a human life.



    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    They have in some times and places, yeah. Nobody has claimed the Constitution created rights.
    You have, because you conflate letter vs spirit and a natural right, with a written righ.



    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    "If you understood you'd agree with me, but I won't explain it to you." isn't a good argument.
    I'm not responsible for what you don't know, and I am not charged with explaining it. A discussion doesn't consist of me teaching you something you claim to already be an expert on, especially in the face of you mocking disrespect, and over all saying you don't take what I say seriously or my argument unless I meet YOUR conditions.



    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    No, that was literally people protesting and dying to get equally protected rights. In writing. And we still have a ways to go on this front.
    It was in part but it was also about recognizing their natural rights, and rights constitutionally that were denied.



    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    No, that's how rights work. We're not a hive-mind, we can't telepathically communicate rights.
    That's how laws work, and we don't need telepathy to know a human being needs to eat, a human being needs shelter, a human being needs love, and warmth etc. We can disagree about the degrees of need and what is a desire vs a need.

    But most people do have a sense of right and wrong.



    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    Yes, just like the 13th Amendment took away peoples rights to own slaves. How terrible it was that peoples rights to own people were taken away. Dreadful.
    I wouldn't say it was a right, I would say it a was a privilege provided to one group over another based on race religion and a belief system, not rooted in fact.


    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    This is a generally correct, but largely imprecise summation of my views. Credit for trying, but this is not a passing grade for an attempt to restate my position.
    I see that, gun owners see that which is why you can talk all day long, listening is done.

    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    Great news: I don't want to as a general rule.
    I don't trust you based on your argument and attitude, therefor I don't believe you.

    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    The irony of this statement is not lost on me.
    Well Ice is Cold.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    Because they had rights under the British Bill of Rights of 1689. Those rights weren't magically floating around the natural ether.

    For the fourth time; can an ex-felon with a long history of violence and diagnosed mental health problems legally buy a gun?

    Yes or no?
    I see your post, I am not going to be responding to you about anything at any point on anything. I already said this to you but maybe you missed it or don't care which is fine. But until you apologize to me, and if you don't know what for don't worry about it. I am not going to reply to you at all.

    I am saying this incase you missed it, if you didn't then I see what you're writing I am just not going to respond. You want to discuss it you can message me privately. Enough derailing entire threads. I don't want to do that.
    Milli Vanilli, Bigger than Elvis

  15. #61035
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    78,898
    Quote Originally Posted by Doctor Amadeus View Post
    You have, because you conflate letter vs spirit and a natural right, with a written righ.
    Because your use of "natural right" is incorrect.

    I don't trust you based on your argument and attitude, therefor I don't believe you.
    Literally the definition of an ad hominem fallacy, just stated openly as if it were a valid position.

    You're just admitting to your own bad faith.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Doctor Amadeus View Post
    I see your post, I am not going to be responding to you about anything at any point. I already said this to you but maybe you missed it or don't care which is fine.
    I really don't care about whether you respond to me. I'll keep making my points to everyone else by your silence.

    But until you apologize to me, and if you don't know what for don't worry about it. I am not going to reply to you at all.
    I have done literally nothing that would, in any way, warrant apologizing to you.
    Last edited by Endus; 2023-03-17 at 08:12 PM.


  16. #61036
    Quote Originally Posted by Doctor Amadeus View Post
    We don't have to agree on a right, that is what makes it a right. It isn't something one has control over or should as it applies to a human life.
    So what are some rights then?

    Quote Originally Posted by Doctor Amadeus View Post
    You have, because you conflate letter vs spirit and a natural right, with a written righ.
    Please cite my post where I claimed the Constitution created the concept of rights, then. Because it's the source of our current rights, but it did not create the concept.

    Quote Originally Posted by Doctor Amadeus View Post
    I'm not responsible for what you don't know, and I am not charged with explaining it.
    This is literally how basic discussions work, my dude.

    Quote Originally Posted by Doctor Amadeus View Post
    It was in part but it was also about recognizing their natural rights, and rights constitutionally that were denied.
    Citation needed on the bolded*

    Quote Originally Posted by Doctor Amadeus View Post
    That's how laws work, and we don't need telepathy to know a human being needs to eat, a human being needs shelter, a human being needs love, and warmth etc.
    None of those things are actually rights in the United States. As evidenced by -

    Millions of unhoused people throughout the country
    Millions of people dealing with regular food insecurity

    Quote Originally Posted by Doctor Amadeus View Post
    But most people do have a sense of right and wrong.
    Sure, but most people also don't agree on this either, depending on where they got their moral compas from.

    Quote Originally Posted by Doctor Amadeus View Post
    I wouldn't say it was a right, I would say it a was a privilege provided to one group over another based on race religion and a belief system, not rooted in fact.
    It was a privilege? What did they have to do to earn said privilege? Last I recall it was as little as going to a slave auction and buying a slave. There was no formal registration process or regulatory body at this point in US history.

  17. #61037
    Void Lord Doctor Amadeus's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    In Security Watching...
    Posts
    43,694
    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    This is literally how basic discussions work, my dude.
    No it's how arguments work, I am not arguing we're having a discussion about that based on our positions, but we don't have to agree to disagree. I disagree with you period. No explanation needed, if you want my point of view you keep asking me about, I'll give it.

    I am not here to prove to you anything.



    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    Citation needed on the bolded*
    No it's not. Nothing in it for me or anyone else.



    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    None of those things are actually rights in the United States. As evidenced by -

    Millions of unhoused people throughout the country
    Millions of people dealing with regular food insecurity
    I don't agree and it's precisely this attitude which you are not alone in that I believe is the problem, It's a big chunk of why we have the issues we have. Pointing to some document with the understanding of history and saying that see, this, this is all that matters fundamentally misses the point.

    In a court of law yes, but anyone who's a free thinking individual is not going to comply. What's put on paper has to be as good as the people who put it there and the people responsible for adhering to it.

    If you already demonstrated you don't give a shit about those rights by trying to play pick a privilege or regulation with it, regardless to how those you target view that, well then yeah GOOD LUCK!

    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    Sure, but most people also don't agree on this either, depending on where they got their moral compas from.
    This is true, you could replace Nature with God or whatever people believe in OR NOT. The point is it's about what we come together and agree to, not what we don't. That is the reason for the constitution.

    But as I said before, if the people putting to paper aren't every bit as good as those writing it or agreeing to follow it then you have NOTHING. It's toilet paper, it's not a right and as you apply it in my opinion it's a privilege.

    Because you don't know what a right or privilege is. "I don't like it, so you don't get to do it" isn't it doesn't matter how many friends you get to agree.



    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    It was a privilege? What did they have to do to earn said privilege? Last I recall it was as little as going to a slave auction and buying a slave. There was no formal registration process or regulatory body at this point in US history.
    What did slave owners do to earn that privilege. Who says you have to earn a privilege, they had guns, they had numbers, they had force. Who stopped them?


    Do you think it was words on a document that started a war or ended it? If that's true then I see another reason for your attitude.


    Might makes right might be another tactic but in the end every war every conflict it always comes down to what I said, people in the end sitting down and making an agreement based on intentions.


    Which as I said words are only as good as those who write them and those responsible to follow them. A piece of paper and the law alone are meaningless. You need people.
    Milli Vanilli, Bigger than Elvis

  18. #61038
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    78,898
    Quote Originally Posted by Doctor Amadeus View Post
    No it's how arguments work, I am not arguing we're having a discussion about that based on our positions, but we don't have to agree to disagree. I disagree with you period. No explanation needed, if you want my point of view you keep asking me about, I'll give it.

    I am not here to prove to you anything.
    Then you're not here to participate in discussion, you're here to threadbomb and irritate people.

    Discussion involves you stating an opinion, and if others find that opinion confusing or contestable, they'll question it and how you drew that conclusion. If your response to that is just to say "Neener neener, I don't owe you any explanation at all, you just have to deal with me and my opinion no matter how unfounded", you're not there for good-faith reasons. You're either only interested in affirmation, rather than discussion, or you were intentionally engaging to bother other people as your primary goal.

    Imagine hearing colleagues chatting about a movie that just came out, and you walked up and said "The movie sucks ass", and then they asked "Really? I loved it. Why'd you hate it?", and then you responded "I'm not here to prove anything to you, it just sucks ass".

    That's you being a jerk, not you engaging in good-faith discussion.


  19. #61039
    Bloodsail Admiral
    1+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Sep 2022
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    1,033
    Quote Originally Posted by Gabriel View Post
    Did you think for one second what you just wrote here? Jesus christ...
    It's the most deadly because it's the cheapest and most widely available, not because it's the most powerful or effective. The cheaper and more widely available a gun or caliber is, the more likely it will be used in crimes because the majority of guns used in crime are guns stolen from lawful users. If you're going to be a massive prick, you should at least put the bare minimum into actually thinking through your arguments before posting them.

    Like I said in that bit you ignored - if .22 was super deadly and effective at stopping bad guys, it would be the caliber of choice for peacekeeping forces the world over because it would save thousands of dollars from individual police force budgets annually.

    But it's *not* effective. It's just cheap.

  20. #61040
    Quote Originally Posted by Grinning Serpent View Post
    It's the most deadly because it's the cheapest and most widely available, not because it's the most powerful or effective. The cheaper and more widely available a gun or caliber is, the more likely it will be used in crimes because the majority of guns used in crime are guns stolen from lawful users. If you're going to be a massive prick, you should at least put the bare minimum into actually thinking through your arguments before posting them.

    Like I said in that bit you ignored - if .22 was super deadly and effective at stopping bad guys, it would be the caliber of choice for peacekeeping forces the world over because it would save thousands of dollars from individual police force budgets annually.

    But it's *not* effective. It's just cheap.
    Are you seriously not seeing what you type out?

    You claimed that it would be better to restrict calibers rather than styles of action, and that rimfire calibers would be fine to not regulate as much because they are not as deadly as center fire cartridges, and then you say that rimfire calibers are:
    -cheaper
    -more widely available
    -already the most used caliber for gun violence
    -just as deadly as center fire cartridges

    How can you contradict yourself so hard and refuse to see it?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •