Guns

[elizabeth09]

Weather we banned gay marriages or not is not the issue here.  You all know that they will still get away with it, just like guns.

Edited April 15, 2013 by elizabeth09

[Winchester]

Wait, Winchester, shouldn't we be careful before we criticize certain stances as "social engineering"? Banning gay marriage could be labeled as social engineering as well. Daylight savings time is also considered social engineering by some....

 

Is there a point, to that?

[PhuturePriest]

Obviously, the solution is to halt gun manufacturing, let the government use the weapons they still have to kill everyone that still knows how to make them, and then destroy every gun in existence. It's 100% impossible to accomplish that, and even if it is accomplished people will just start hacking at each other with swords again, but hey, swords are cooler than guns anyway.

[CatholicsAreKewl]

Is there a point, to that?

Yes. It seems disingenuous to me to argue for the government to focus on any social issues if we start labeling some laws as "social engineering". Like I said earlier, banning gay marriage and changing the time are also social engineering. This is why I am confused by your use of that term... unless you are a libertarian.

[CatholicsAreKewl]

Weather we banned gay marriages or not is not the issue here.  You all know that they will still get away with it, just like guns.

Get away with marriage or sex? 

[Winchester]

Yes. It seems disingenuous to me to argue for the government to focus on any social issues if we start labeling some laws as "social engineering". Like I said earlier, banning gay marriage and changing the time are also social engineering. This is why I am confused by your use of that term... unless you are a libertarian.

 

I'm a libertarian anarchist. I don't think we have the right to ban "gay marriage", although we have every right to not call it such, or to acknowledge the contract as valid.

[CatholicsAreKewl]

I'm a libertarian anarchist. I don't think we have the right to ban "gay marriage", although we have every right to not call it such, or to acknowledge the contract as valid.

Wow, I thought I would be the only person holding the nut point of view... I'd consider myself libertarian leaning. Anarcho-capitalism is what I would promote in an ideal world but I don't know if it's practical. 

[havok579257]

I read what you wrote. Typical social engineering nonsense. You advocate aggression. I reject aggression. You consider that being a "rabid gun nut". There's nothing I can do about your religious veneration of safety through government action.

 

this is what i said in my first post on this topic:

 

 

"Do I advocate taking away guns? No. Do I advocate denying people their 2nd amendement right? No. Although something needs to be done to stop all their accidental deaths. Maybe something like if your own a gun you are forced to do so many hours of gun saftey class and if you accidently kill someone or do something stupid like shot your kid while cleaning your gun right in front of him you should have your gun rights taken away. I don't know exactly, but something needs to be done because there are way to many law abiding citizens doing absolutely stupid things with guns."

 

 

Only in a delusional fantasy word is saying you don't want to deny people their rights calling for aggression to take away their rights.  But hey, making up stuff is way cooler than actually reading and talking about was actually said.  Yeah, making stuff up is cool, maybe I should try it.  I can't believe you winchester, you want to kill anyone who will not let american's have nuclear weapons.... nope, the truth is better than making stuff up.

Edited April 16, 2013 by havok579257

[havok579257]

Obviously, the solution is to halt gun manufacturing, let the government use the weapons they still have to kill everyone that still knows how to make them, and then destroy every gun in existence. It's 100% impossible to accomplish that, and even if it is accomplished people will just start hacking at each other with swords again, but hey, swords are cooler than guns anyway.

 

 

Well this was a pointless contribution to the topic.

[PhuturePriest]

Well this was a pointless contribution to the topic.

 

Actually, I did have a point. I simply conveyed it through sarcasm and sharp wit.

[Winchester]

Wow, I thought I would be the only person holding the nut point of view... I'd consider myself libertarian leaning. Anarcho-capitalism is what I would promote in an ideal world but I don't know if it's practical. 

 

It's not about practicality, it's about doing what's morally acceptable. It's not morally acceptable to make preemptive strikes. Even if one votes to write down rules for the preemptive strikes.

[Winchester]

this is what i said in my first post on this topic:

 

 

"Do I advocate taking away guns? No. Do I advocate denying people their 2nd amendement right? No. Although something needs to be done to stop all their accidental deaths. Maybe something like if your own a gun you are forced to do so many hours of gun saftey class and if you accidently kill someone or do something stupid like shot your kid while cleaning your gun right in front of him you should have your gun rights taken away. I don't know exactly, but something needs to be done because there are way to many law abiding citizens doing absolutely stupid things with guns."

 

 

Only in a delusional fantasy word is saying you don't want to deny people their rights calling for aggression to take away their rights.  But hey, making up stuff is way cooler than actually reading and talking about was actually said.  Yeah, making stuff up is cool, maybe I should try it.  I can't believe you winchester, you want to kill anyone who will not let american's have nuclear weapons.... nope, the truth is better than making stuff up.

 

You're putting a group of people in a position to grant permission for possession of weapons. How you're going to enforce this without violence is beyond me to imagine.

 

Oh, wait, there's the word "force", up there. Yeah. Force. But owning a weapon isn't "force", so the initial force would be the force to make people behave in a certain way. That sounds remarkably like aggression.

[havok579257]

You're putting a group of people in a position to grant permission for possession of weapons. How you're going to enforce this without violence is beyond me to imagine.

 

Oh, wait, there's the word "force", up there. Yeah. Force. But owning a weapon isn't "force", so the initial force would be the force to make people behave in a certain way. That sounds remarkably like aggression.

your right, how dare i want to deny murders weapons.  I forgot that by denying mass murders nuclear weapons was unfair according to winchester.  i forgot in your perfect world anyone and everyone could have access and not be denied any type of weapon. 

 

How dare I want the government to deny murders weapons.  How dare I want the government to protect me from terrorists with nuclear weapons.  How dare I deny anyone a weapon even if said weapon will no only wipe out me and my family but also the entire country I live in.

 

And this is why anarchy does not work winchester.  There would be no one around for this form of government to work.

[Winchester]

your right, how dare i want to deny murders weapons.  I forgot that by denying mass murders nuclear weapons was unfair according to winchester.  i forgot in your perfect world anyone and everyone could have access and not be denied any type of weapon. 

 

How dare I want the government to deny murders weapons.  How dare I want the government to protect me from terrorists with nuclear weapons.  How dare I deny anyone a weapon even if said weapon will no only wipe out me and my family but also the entire country I live in.

 

And this is why anarchy does not work winchester.  There would be no one around for this form of government to work.

 

I've never said the world would be perfect. I reject preemptive strikes. You don't.

 

Ah, the conjectural damage done by non-aggression.

[Papist]

It's not about practicality, it's about doing what's morally acceptable. It's not morally acceptable to make preemptive strikes. Even if one votes to write down rules for the preemptive strikes.

Define preemptive strike. 

 

Would me shooting someone that is pointing a gun at my son be a preemptive strike? Where is the the line between preemptive strike and protecting loved one? Is it the moment the aggressor is in the action of aggression toward the would-be victim/innocent?