Gun rights victory today!

[Kilgore Trout]

Revoltingest and ATS -

Here is my original criticism of ATS. It was in response to ATS's silly use of terms like "social engineering" and "nanny state". I understand that it is seemingly hard for you guys to understand how silly those terms are to use in this discussion, but you should try to look at it from an objective point of view.

Certainly, I was putting forth a broader philosophical opinion on the issue, as it cuts to the heart of the relevance of the issue, for me. Seeing as it is an opinion, I'm not sure what you mean about looking at it from an objective point of view - particularly, when the "objective" point of view you're referring to, is your opinion.

As to you stating it's not a very good way to "phrase it," I'm not sure what the "it" is that you are referring to, nor why it isn't very good. As you didn't elucidate on either of these things, I can't make any assumptions about what exactly your argument is, or why my opinion is "stupid," "silly," or "wrong."

 

[Magic Man]

He was being over-the-top, but that did not warrant the vitriol in your response.
We all get to be silly now & then. One shouldn't be abused for it.

I see. So, when he does it, it's just being "over the top, but when I do it, it's "vitriol". That sounds fair.

 

[Magic Man]

Certainly, I was putting forth a broader philosophical opinion on the issue, as it cuts to the heart of the relevance of the issue, for me. Seeing as it is an opinion, I'm not sure what you mean about looking at it from an objective point of view - particularly, when the "objective" point of view you're referring to, is your opinion.

As to you stating it's not a very good way to "phrase it," I'm not sure what the "it" is that you are referring to, nor why it isn't very good. As you didn't elucidate on either of these things, I can't make any assumptions about what exactly your argument is, or why my opinion is "stupid," "silly," or "wrong."

You were saying that people who want guns to be banned want a socially engineered nanny state. That is not even remotely true. That's why it's silly and wrong.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

You were saying that people who want guns to be banned want a socially engineered nanny state. That is not even remotely true. That's why it's silly and wrong.

What's silly and wrong, once again, are your assumptions.

 

[Magic Man]

What's silly and wrong, once again, are your assumptions.

Yes, we've established that that's your opinion. What I'm trying to talk about is reality, and in reality, what's silly and wrong is using words like "social engineering" and "nanny state" to describe the opposite view of yours on this topic.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Yes, we've established that that's your opinion. What I'm trying to talk about is reality, and in reality, what's silly and wrong is using words like "social engineering" and "nanny state" to describe the opposite view of yours on this topic.

If the opposite view of mine consists of "social engineering" and a "nanny state," then what is wrong with using those words?

 

[Magic Man]

If the opposite view of mine consists of "social engineering" and a "nanny state," then what is wrong with using those words?

Nothing, but that's an immense "if" in this case. That's the point. The opposite view of yours here doesn't consist of social engineering or a nanny state.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Nothing, but that's an immense "if" in this case. That's the point. The opposite view of yours here doesn't consist of social engineering or a nanny state.

Perhaps, your faulty assumption is regarding what the opposite of my opinion is, and who it applies to. Read my original post again, and, first, please describe exactly what my opinion is, and the main point of my view.

 

[Magic Man]

Perhaps, your faulty assumption is regarding what the opposite of my opinion is, and who it applies to. Read my original post again, and, first, please describe exactly what my opinion is, and the main point of my view.

I'll tell you what. Why don't you explain to us who you were talking about when you said "but one of them isn't the right to a nanny-state socially engineered to result in the lowest amount of harm and suffering." Correct me if I'm wrong, but that would seem to be referring to people who want to ban guns to reduce the amount of harm and suffering. Who else might you be describing there? Is it possible for you to put it in precise, unequivocal terms, or would that go against your principles?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I'll tell you what. Why don't you explain to us who you were talking about when you said "but one of them isn't the right to a nanny-state socially engineered to result in the lowest amount of harm and suffering." Correct me if I'm wrong, but that would seem to be referring to people who want to ban guns to reduce the amount of harm and suffering. Who else might you be describing there? Is it possible for you to put it in precise, unequivocal terms, or would that go against your principles?

Perhaps your mistake, is assuming I'm describing anybody at all. Seriously, can you describe what my opinion is, and what my main point is, as described in my post? I've already stated I was putting forth a broader philosophical opinion on the issue. Knowing that, can you extrapolate what the point of my post was?

 

[Revoltingest]

I see. So, when he does it, it's just being "over the top, but when I do it, it's "vitriol". That sounds fair.

His "over-the-top" post was not abusive. Your response was.

 

[Reverend Rick]

Because the point is to determine how much net harm guns do.

Could we apply this point to swimming pools or motorcycles as well?

 

[Father Heathen]

Just goes to show how backward yanks are. They also have the death penalty still. I think they all want to grow up to be John Wayne look alikes, Pilgrim.

Cheers

See, instead of rational, substantiated arguments we get cliche ad hominems.

 

[Father Heathen]

Thanks for the reply Zardoz. I imagine we will never agree.
As I see it I can live free or I can live in fear. I can be strong or I can be weak.
To give in to the need (or the use) of weaponry is to surrender ones being to fear.
The use of weapons and physical force is the way of the inherently weak, the fearful.
Badshah Khan, Ghandi, King - these were men of bravery. Free men.
Weapons = no freedom.
Just that simple.

How exactly is being defenseless and at the mercy of those who would do you harm being free? Sorry you would think less of me for not being meek, submissive and servile.

 

[Father Heathen]

If you have a gun the chances of others having a gun are just as high.

Is it not better for you to at least have equal footing rather than for them to have the upper hand?

 

[Father Heathen]

1) Gun violence is not caused by gun ownership.

It's funny how people can't seem to wrap their minds around the obvious fact that violence is caused by sociological/psychological issues and not by the mere presence of inanimate objects.

 

[Father Heathen]

lol and beer doesn't cause people to be drunk

What a retarded analogy. Consuming alcohol makes one intoxicated, but merely possessing a weapon doesn't make one violent.

 

[Father Heathen]

I don't know about gun rights victory...
More like a perpetual national failure

I don't know about your quaint little corner of the world, but over here having rights and freedoms is considered a good thing.

 

[Willamena]

It was a squeeker (5-4 ruling), but it appears that the 2nd Amendment has finally joined the incorporation doctrine, ie, applicable to the states also.

Yay! Americans can take up arms against their state governments as well as their federal government. Well done.

And long live the state, by whomever its made
"Sir, I didn't see nothing. I was just getting home late."

 

[Zardoz]

...First, there is no reason whatsoever to be afraid of a Nazi-like America.

I'm sure the Jews in pre-Nazi Germany thought the same thing. Germany was the birthplace of progressive Judaism, and one of the most technologically advanced Western nations in the world. I live where people ask me if I have horns.

Second, even if the government does come for you, your couple of handguns and rifle aren't going to save you.

I think if every Jew in Nazi Germany had a couple of guns, when the Nazis came for them, there'd be a whole lotta Nazis with a hole in their head. May not save everyone, but I'd bet that'd have an impact, for sure. Familiar with the Warsaw Ghetto uprising?

The real power of the people rests in the fact that we control the government. We haven't done too well with this control in recent times, but in the end we do still control it.

Til martial law is declared in wartime, then all bets are off. Did you know a lot of our military men think war with Israel is likely? I have the right to be cautious and wary, a long and bloody history (Jewish blood) justifies this. Wishful thinking and victim mentality is over, meet the new Jew with a .44 magnum. Come n get me.