View Full Version : Can we really have a "partial" gun ban in the long term?
CaveDog
06-18-2016, 08:55 PM
Granted, the '94 ban wasn't expanded but I'm talking long term in an environment of continuing mass shootings. If the rationale behind an "assault weapon" ban is to mitigate mass shootings then it seems to me that over time a complete gun ban is likely to become inevitable.
With a total civilian gun ban in China you still get knife wielding maniacs attacking schools and plus the Kunming train station attack in 2014. While it can be argued that casualties are less in such cases it still points out an underlying issue. Those bent on mass casualty attacks just seem to change tactics in the absence of more effective implements.
Lets presume for a moment that all semi-automatic firearms in civilian hands could be *poofed* out of existence in America. What prevents nut jobs from simply reverting to "beltway sniper" style tactics? Similar numbers of casualties, just stretched out over months instead of hours. That happens a few times and hunting rifles become "sniper rifles" which must be banned. Even single shot firearms could be used to that effect one way or another so eventually, if there's no way to stop mass murderers, logic would dictate that one class of firearms inevitably gets banned after another until they're all banned.
Gun control advocates keep assuring *most* gun owners that they can keep their guns but I don't see how that's possible if these mass killings can't be reigned in.
Is my logic faulty?
Crepitus
06-18-2016, 09:48 PM
Ransom of all people had a good point the other day. Limits on magazine capacity would likely have more effect than a gun ban.
An "assault rifle" ban is ridiculous because actual assault weapons are not easily available in the US. What the media call assault weapons are simply semi auto rifles with a buncha black plastic stuck to them. They are no different than a hunting rifle with the exception that they look cool with a 30 round mag stuck in them. In most cases the magazine will fit in the one that looks like a hunting rifle too. It may not look like something the terminator would carry but it works just like the other one.
It also seems to me we could benefit from some stricter criterion on who could and should buy what. Don't ask me what that should be though. I haven't of that Answer.
decedent
06-18-2016, 10:14 PM
Lets presume for a moment that all semi-automatic firearms in civilian hands could be *poofed* out of existence in America. What prevents nut jobs from simply reverting to "beltway sniper" style tactics?
How did humans survive for millions of years without guns?
CaveDog
06-18-2016, 11:37 PM
My point is simply that banning any gun for the purpose of reducing mass shootings pretty much guarantees that all guns would eventually have to be banned because shooters would simply adapt to what's available. If a gun isn't suitable for mass shootings on the spot, a shooter would probably change tactics and use it sniper style, then that type of gun also needs to be banned.
I'm just saying that the assurance that all guns won't be banned is ridiculous in that context. The human tendency to adapt makes it logically impossible.
Cletus
06-19-2016, 02:01 AM
@Ransom (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=724) of all people had a good point the other day. Limits on magazine capacity would likely have more effect than a gun ban.
An "assault rifle" ban is ridiculous because actual assault weapons are not easily available in the US. What the media call assault weapons are simply semi auto rifles with a buncha black plastic stuck to them. They are no different than a hunting rifle with the exception that they look cool with a 30 round mag stuck in them. In most cases the magazine will fit in the one that looks like a hunting rifle too. It may not look like something the terminator would carry but it works just like the other one.
Name one.
waltky
06-19-2016, 02:30 AM
Can we really have a "partial" gun ban in the long term?Granny says dat may be the solution...
... ban the triggers...
... or some other part o' the gun...
... rendering it unusable.
FindersKeepers
06-19-2016, 03:30 AM
Gun control advocates keep assuring *most* gun owners that they can keep their guns but I don't see how that's possible if these mass killings can't be reigned in.
Is my logic faulty?
I don't really see another assault-lookalike ban taking place, well, maybe under Hillary, but it would eventually be reversed and it wouldn't include confiscation.
It would be a feel-good measure, like the last time, that would have no effect on the mass shootings or terrorist-inspired acts we've seen of late.
I don't know of any politicians who advocate confiscation.
AeonPax
06-19-2016, 03:41 AM
`
`
I support a permanent ban on high cap clips and the AR-15. Why? Those items are used for one purpose only; Killing Humans.
Peter1469
06-19-2016, 04:21 AM
My point is simply that banning any gun for the purpose of reducing mass shootings pretty much guarantees that all guns would eventually have to be banned because shooters would simply adapt to what's available. If a gun isn't suitable for mass shootings on the spot, a shooter would probably change tactics and use it sniper style, then that type of gun also needs to be banned.
I'm just saying that the assurance that all guns won't be banned is ridiculous in that context. The human tendency to adapt makes it logically impossible.
The goal of the hard left is a total ban or near total ban.
Anyway, once 3D printers get a bit better the discussion is moot.
Ransom
06-19-2016, 06:19 AM
@Ransom (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=724) of all people had a good point the other day. Limits on magazine capacity would likely have more effect than a gun ban.
An "assault rifle" ban is ridiculous because actual assault weapons are not easily available in the US. What the media call assault weapons are simply semi auto rifles with a buncha black plastic stuck to them. They are no different than a hunting rifle with the exception that they look cool with a 30 round mag stuck in them. In most cases the magazine will fit in the one that looks like a hunting rifle too. It may not look like something the terminator would carry but it works just like the other one.
It also seems to me we could benefit from some stricter criterion on who could and should buy what. Don't ask me what that should be though. I haven't of that Answer.
I also think there should be laws on how many rounds you can carry and or conceal. I believe hunting laws restrict rounds, I believe it is 4 but I don't hunt so am not sure and too lazy to look up. In defense of your private property, I say unrestricted ammo unless it begins to threaten any neighbors...... but why would you need more than say 9 rounds........I know... heard arguments both ways, both make sense. The criminally insane ain't gonna care about laws. But, I think it a reasonable compromise for these rabid gun grabbers.
Ransom
06-19-2016, 06:22 AM
The goal of the hard left is a total ban or near total ban.
Anyway, once 3D printers get a bit better the discussion is moot.
Gun manufacturers actually cutting edge on research and development, printng, nanotechnology, etc.
stjames1_53
06-19-2016, 06:28 AM
I don't really see another assault-lookalike ban taking place, well, maybe under Hillary, but it would eventually be reversed and it wouldn't include confiscation.
It would be a feel-good measure, like the last time, that would have no effect on the mass shootings or terrorist-inspired acts we've seen of late.
I don't know of any politicians who advocate confiscation.
Feinstein, Schumer, Boxer, Hillary, all politicians in California, Obama, Jeh Johnson......... there really is a list as long as my leg.
stjames1_53
06-19-2016, 06:32 AM
`
`
I support a permanent ban on high cap clips and the AR-15. Why? Those items are used for one purpose only; Killing Humans.
You're talking gun-grabber meme............... Really? and high capacity clips, too............
You show your knowledge of firearms, which appears to be quite limited
Idiotic at its absolute finest.
there is no such thing as a High capacity clip.
So, I'll say what you actually meat to say...............magazine...................
so, the next time you talk about converting a Right into a privilege, at least use the appropriate terms.....
AeonPax
06-19-2016, 06:36 AM
You're talking gun-grabber meme............... Really? and high capacity clips, too............You show your knowledge of firearms, which appears to be quite limite Idiotic at its absolute finest.
there is no such thing as a High capacity clip.So, I'll say what you actually meat to say...............magazine...................so, the next time you talk about converting a Right into a privilege, at least use the appropriate terms.....
`
I don't know what makes you such a worthless poster, but it's sure working.
stjames1_53
06-19-2016, 06:41 AM
`
I don't know what makes you such a worthless poster, but it's sure working.
Say what you will, you're the one without any knowledge of firearms.
so work this....................
you are a gun grabber! anti-Bill of Rights kind of person................ohhh those ee-vile looking weapons of mass destruction.
piss off dude..............
CaveDog
06-19-2016, 07:43 AM
Name one.
Ruger Mini 14. Looks like a hunting rifle. Wood stock, no pistol grip, etc. Accepts high capacity magazines and is functionally the same as an AR15.
Peter1469
06-19-2016, 07:48 AM
CNN wants to ban high velocity magazines. OK. I will give the left loons that one. :smiley:
stjames1_53
06-19-2016, 08:12 AM
CNN wants to ban high velocity magazines. OK. I will give the left loons that one. :smiley:
none of these items were used. An AR-15 is a semi-auto, and the hell is a High Velocity Magazine?
The feds get one gun, the door is open to the rest of them.
Crepitus
06-19-2016, 08:26 AM
Name one.
ruger 10 22
Peter1469
06-19-2016, 09:56 AM
none of these items were used. An AR-15 is a semi-auto, and the hell is a High Velocity Magazine?
The feds get one gun, the door is open to the rest of them.
A high velocity magazine is something very important to the left wing loons at CNN who want to dictate national gun policy. :shocked:
Subdermal
06-19-2016, 10:05 AM
How did humans survive for millions of years without guns?
By focking faster than dying - and by not having brains as small as yours - and they still managed to die in huge numbers.
Subdermal
06-19-2016, 10:06 AM
My point is simply that banning any gun for the purpose of reducing mass shootings pretty much guarantees that all guns would eventually have to be banned because shooters would simply adapt to what's available. If a gun isn't suitable for mass shootings on the spot, a shooter would probably change tactics and use it sniper style, then that type of gun also needs to be banned.
I'm just saying that the assurance that all guns won't be banned is ridiculous in that context. The human tendency to adapt makes it logically impossible.
You are identifying the encroaching and gradual nature of this threat.
Subdermal
06-19-2016, 10:10 AM
`
I don't know what makes you such a worthless poster, but it's sure working.
The mature and open-minded poster refutes first, and butt-hurts second.
You nailed the 2nd, and totally forgot the first.
Subdermal
06-19-2016, 10:14 AM
CNN wants to ban high velocity magazines. OK. I will give the left loons that one. :smiley:
'Zactly. They can have the shredder projectiles; the ultra huge clips things, and the high motion killer doodads.
Cletus
06-19-2016, 11:44 AM
`
`
I support a permanent ban on high cap clips and the AR-15. Why? Those items are used for one purpose only; Killing Humans.
Since the AR-15 is not a clip fed weapon, I agree.
Ban high capacity clips... but leave our magazines alone.
Cletus
06-19-2016, 11:48 AM
Ruger Mini 14. Looks like a hunting rifle. Wood stock, no pistol grip, etc. Accepts high capacity magazines and is functionally the same as an AR15.
It doesn't take AR-15 magazines. The Mini-14 mag is proprietary. I wish it took AR mags. Compatibility with my AR would be nice.
Cletus
06-19-2016, 11:50 AM
ruger 10 22
That is a .22 long rifle.
No, it won't take AR mags and it doesn't look like any hunting rifle I have ever seen... unless you are think Prairie Dogs are big game.
donttread
06-19-2016, 11:56 AM
Granted, the '94 ban wasn't expanded but I'm talking long term in an environment of continuing mass shootings. If the rationale behind an "assault weapon" ban is to mitigate mass shootings then it seems to me that over time a complete gun ban is likely to become inevitable.
With a total civilian gun ban in China you still get knife wielding maniacs attacking schools and plus the Kunming train station attack in 2014. While it can be argued that casualties are less in such cases it still points out an underlying issue. Those bent on mass casualty attacks just seem to change tactics in the absence of more effective implements.
Lets presume for a moment that all semi-automatic firearms in civilian hands could be *poofed* out of existence in America. What prevents nut jobs from simply reverting to "beltway sniper" style tactics? Similar numbers of casualties, just stretched out over months instead of hours. That happens a few times and hunting rifles become "sniper rifles" which must be banned. Even single shot firearms could be used to that effect one way or another so eventually, if there's no way to stop mass murderers, logic would dictate that one class of firearms inevitably gets banned after another until they're all banned.
Gun control advocates keep assuring *most* gun owners that they can keep their guns but I don't see how that's possible if these mass killings can't be reigned in.
Is my logic faulty?
Evidence clearly shows that while mass shootings are occasionally attempted outside gun free zones they are on average much less successful. The problem isn't guns, it's unsecured gun free target zones. Courthouses are gun free zones but have hardly any shootings because they're secured .
Common
06-19-2016, 11:58 AM
Its not the object its the intent and aside from that this country is unable to stop ILLEGAL guns flowing into the USA untethered.
Liberals want an open border for VOTES thats the same reason we have as much illegal drugs in the USA as we do, and would have illegal guns.
Crepitus
06-19-2016, 01:02 PM
That is a .22 long rifle.
No, it won't take AR mags and it doesn't look like any hunting rifle I have ever seen... unless you are think Prairie Dogs are big game.
OK, I'm not saying every rifle will take an AR mag, just that nearly every rifle, "assault weapon" or not has an available high capacity magazine.
Any more hairs you wanna split?
Dr. Who
06-19-2016, 01:06 PM
The goal of the hard left is a total ban or near total ban.
Anyway, once 3D printers get a bit better the discussion is moot.
You'll still have to buy the barrel or make one.
Peter1469
06-19-2016, 01:08 PM
You'll still have to buy the barrel or make one.
3D printers will do that in the future. Now you can order them in bulk if you are worried about needing some in the future. Gun parts are not tracked.
Standing Wolf
06-19-2016, 01:15 PM
I support a permanent ban on high cap clips and the AR-15. Why? Those items are used for one purpose only; Killing Humans.
By some estimates, there may be as many as two million such weapons in private hands in America. If their "one purpose" was "killing humans", isn't it reasonable to expect that at least one of those weapons would be used for "killing humans" several times a day? Murders using rifles generally are rare; with so-called assault-style rifles, they probably constitute something like one- or two-percent of all murders in the U.S. on an annual basis.
Yes, such firearms are subject to abuse and criminal mayhem, as are a thousand other things no one talks about banning. Analogies comparing the usefulness vs. inherent dangerousness of other commonly-owned items are dismissed as "false", without any attempts to logically support such an assertion; we are told, in effect, "They are different because they are different".
Dr. Who
06-19-2016, 01:16 PM
Its not the object its the intent and aside from that this country is unable to stop ILLEGAL guns flowing into the USA untethered.
Liberals want an open border for VOTES thats the same reason we have as much illegal drugs in the USA as we do, and would have illegal guns.
The government can just legally do what they do with everything that they want to control - impose huge manufacturers sales taxes. If there was a 400% tax on certain types of ammo and certain types of guns, it would effectively restrict the market in those items. If you have to pay $5 to $10 a bullet or more, it wouldn't be very popular, nor would an AR-15 type weapon be popular if it were to cost $2,500 rather than $500.
Peter1469
06-19-2016, 01:17 PM
By some estimates, there may be as many as two million such weapons in private hands in America. If their "one purpose" was "killing humans", isn't it reasonable to expect that at least one of those weapons would be used for "killing humans" several times a day? Murders using rifles generally are rare; with so-called assault-style rifles, they probably constitute something like one- or two-percent of all murders in the U.S. on an annual basis.
Yes, such firearms are subject to abuse and criminal mayhem, as are a thousand other things no one talks about banning. Analogies comparing the usefulness vs. inherent dangerousness of other commonly-owned items are dismissed as "false", without any attempts to logically support such an assertion; we are told, in effect, "They are different because they are different".
When was the last time someone was murdered with an assault weapon in the US.
I mean a real one. Not what the "media" claims.
Peter1469
06-19-2016, 01:18 PM
The government can just legally do what they do with everything that they want to control - impose huge manufacturers sales taxes. If there was a 400% tax on certain types of ammo and certain types of guns, it would effectively restrict the market in those items. If you have to pay $5 to $10 a bullet or more, it wouldn't be very popular, nor would an AR-15 type weapon be popular if it were to cost $2,500 rather than $500.
Reload your rounds to save money.
Standing Wolf
06-19-2016, 01:19 PM
When was the last time someone was murdered with an assault weapon in the US.
I mean a real one. Not what the "media" claims.
I can almost guarantee that the man behind that weapon wore a uniform and a badge.
Ethereal
06-19-2016, 01:20 PM
@Ransom (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=724) of all people had a good point the other day. Limits on magazine capacity would likely have more effect than a gun ban.
Assuming criminals actually followed such a law, which they won't.
Ethereal
06-19-2016, 01:20 PM
How did humans survive for millions of years without guns?
How did humans survive for millions of years without the state?
Ethereal
06-19-2016, 01:23 PM
I also think there should be laws on how many rounds you can carry and or conceal. I believe hunting laws restrict rounds, I believe it is 4 but I don't hunt so am not sure and too lazy to look up. In defense of your private property, I say unrestricted ammo unless it begins to threaten any neighbors...... but why would you need more than say 9 rounds........I know... heard arguments both ways, both make sense. The criminally insane ain't gonna care about laws. But, I think it a reasonable compromise for these rabid gun grabbers.
There can be no compromise with the gun-grabbers, reasonable or otherwise, because their ultimate goal is a complete ban on firearms or something approaching it.
Proposals to ban certain guns or magazines are just incremental steps towards the same goal of gun prohibition.
Peter1469
06-19-2016, 01:24 PM
Magazine size limits are silly. People will store them and use them when tyranny must be opposed.
Dr. Who
06-19-2016, 01:25 PM
Reload your rounds to save money.
Huge tax on powder too.
Cletus
06-19-2016, 01:26 PM
Punitive taxes are an infringement.
You have been listening to King George too much.
Ethereal
06-19-2016, 01:27 PM
The government can just legally do what they do with everything that they want to control - impose huge manufacturers sales taxes. If there was a 400% tax on certain types of ammo and certain types of guns, it would effectively restrict the market in those items. If you have to pay $5 to $10 a bullet or more, it wouldn't be very popular, nor would an AR-15 type weapon be popular if it were to cost $2,500 rather than $500.
Yea, just like prohibitions on drugs have managed to all but eliminate them from our society.
Mister D
06-19-2016, 01:31 PM
Magazine size limits are silly. People will store them and use them when tyranny must be opposed.
They're jail time in my state and I know people with them.
Mister D
06-19-2016, 01:32 PM
Yea, just like prohibitions on drugs have managed to all but eliminate them from our society.
The lesson of Prohibition is not you simply cannot ban something millions of people want.
Dr. Who
06-19-2016, 01:34 PM
Yea, just like prohibitions on drugs have managed to all but eliminate them from our society.
Taxing the bejeebers out of something is not like prohibiting it. In fact, it might make a real dent in the criminal use of firearms. Drive-by shootings would get very expensive.
Ethereal
06-19-2016, 01:37 PM
Taxing the bejeebers out of something is not like prohibiting it. In fact, it might make a real dent in the criminal use of firearms. Drive-by shootings would get very expensive.
It's very much like it.
And it will have the same effect.
Creating a black market where there are no government regulations.
Americans smuggle cigarettes like crazy (http://www.businessinsider.com/black-markets-for-cigarettes-correlated-with-excise-taxes-on-cigarettes-2015-8)
Mister D
06-19-2016, 01:40 PM
Progressives remain oblivious to the reality of 1) the number of firearms currently in the US and 2) illegal firearms trafficking and the enormous market it serves.
Guys, buy a clue.
Cthulhu
06-19-2016, 01:49 PM
My point is simply that banning any gun for the purpose of reducing mass shootings pretty much guarantees that all guns would eventually have to be banned because shooters would simply adapt to what's available. If a gun isn't suitable for mass shootings on the spot, a shooter would probably change tactics and use it sniper style, then that type of gun also needs to be banned.
I'm just saying that the assurance that all guns won't be banned is ridiculous in that context. The human tendency to adapt makes it logically impossible.
I don't think they would stop. There are plenty of ways to kill large numbers of people - without guns.
Toxins, explosives, tampering with water supply, going to a daycare with a machete....etc
People with intent to kill are going to find a way to do it.
Honestly I were going to kill a bunch of people I wouldn't use a gun. It gives away your position - even silencers aren't silent and you have to aim at each target. Unless you're in a crowded place, but even then you're likely going to injure more than kill.
There is more than one way to track up a body count. Guns are one of the least effective ways in my opinion.
But it makes for very profitable headlines.
Sent from my evil, baby seal-clubbing cellphone.
Cthulhu
06-19-2016, 01:51 PM
`
`
I support a permanent ban on high cap clips and the AR-15. Why? Those items are used for one purpose only; Killing Humans.
Okay. I'll play. But cops and military have to use them too.
And you're referring to magazines, because clips...yeah...
Sent from my evil, baby seal-clubbing cellphone.
Cthulhu
06-19-2016, 01:58 PM
By some estimates, there may be as many as two million such weapons in private hands in America. If their "one purpose" was "killing humans", isn't it reasonable to expect that at least one of those weapons would be used for "killing humans" several times a day? Murders using rifles generally are rare; with so-called assault-style rifles, they probably constitute something like one- or two-percent of all murders in the U.S. on an annual basis.
Yes, such firearms are subject to abuse and criminal mayhem, as are a thousand other things no one talks about banning. Analogies comparing the usefulness vs. inherent dangerousness of other commonly-owned items are dismissed as "false", without any attempts to logically support such an assertion; we are told, in effect, "They are different because they are different".
Bingo.
I could give the gun control wombats a tiny amount of credence is they were specifically targeting handguns - the main device used in the bulk of all gun fights.
Sent from my evil, baby seal-clubbing cellphone.
Peter1469
06-19-2016, 02:07 PM
Huge tax on powder too.
High taxes create a black market. I suppose nobody has gotten illegal drugs in America the last 50 years. Because the government doesn't allow it. :smiley:
Peter1469
06-19-2016, 02:08 PM
Taxing the bejeebers out of something is not like prohibiting it. In fact, it might make a real dent in the criminal use of firearms. Drive-by shootings would get very expensive.
Why? The same people that smuggle their drugs into the US will smuggle bullets.
Mister D
06-19-2016, 02:10 PM
Why? The same people that smuggle their drugs into the US will smuggle bullets.
They already do.
Cletus
06-19-2016, 03:00 PM
Taxing the bejeebers out of something is not like prohibiting it. In fact, it might make a real dent in the criminal use of firearms. Drive-by shootings would get very expensive.
Of course it is.
Ask the Supreme Court about poll taxes.
Subdermal
06-19-2016, 03:30 PM
How did humans survive for millions of years without guns?
How did humans survive for millions of years without the state?
How did humans survive for millions of years without taxes?
How did humans survive for millions of years without liberalism?
Subdermal
06-19-2016, 03:33 PM
Taxing the bejeebers out of something is not like prohibiting it. In fact, it might make a real dent in the criminal use of firearms. Drive-by shootings would get very expensive.
I submit you do not have the first clue how black markets are created and operated.
decedent
06-19-2016, 03:54 PM
By focking faster than dying...
Challenge accepted.
decedent
06-19-2016, 03:57 PM
How did humans survive for millions of years without the state?
I knew you were nearby. I heard the jingle of bitcoins.
What is "the state"? Laws are just codified rules. Rules exist in every group -- explicitly or implicitly. In a so-called "primitive" society, they're handed down verbally and dictated by elders. They are the "state."
Ethereal
06-19-2016, 04:13 PM
I knew you were nearby. I heard the jingle of bitcoins.
What is "the state"? Laws are just codified rules. Rules exist in every group -- explicitly or implicitly. In a so-called "primitive" society, they're handed down verbally and dictated by elders. They are the "state."
The state is defined by the characteristics that differentiate it from societies without a state: Centralized authority, standing armies, bureaucratic systems, etc.
And it didn't exist until the advent of agriculture and sedentary human societies about 12,000 years ago.
As for your claim that tribal elders "dictated" rules, that simply isn't the case.
From The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Hunters and Gatherers (http://catdir.loc.gov/catdir/samples/cam034/98038671.pdf):
http://goo.gl/ab69cP
I suggest you take some time to read that book.
It's very informative and well researched.
Crepitus
06-19-2016, 04:41 PM
Assuming criminals actually followed such a law, which they won't.
Yea yea, bla bla, same old argument. So why do we have any laws at all again?
Mac-7
06-19-2016, 05:06 PM
How did humans survive for millions of years without guns?
Under liberal gun control only law abiding citizens would have to give up their guns.
And they would be at the mercy of criminals who care nothing about laws.
Ethereal
06-19-2016, 05:59 PM
Yea yea, bla bla, same old argument.
It just so happens to be true.
So why do we have any laws at all again?
To provide people with an objective framework of acceptable conduct and to provide people with legal recourse after the fact.
Dr. Who
06-19-2016, 07:11 PM
The state is defined by the characteristics that differentiate it from societies without a state: Centralized authority, standing armies, bureaucratic systems, etc.
And it didn't exist until the advent of agriculture and sedentary human societies about 12,000 years ago.
As for your claim that tribal elders "dictated" rules, that simply isn't the case.
From The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Hunters and Gatherers (http://catdir.loc.gov/catdir/samples/cam034/98038671.pdf):
http://goo.gl/ab69cP
I suggest you take some time to read that book.
It's very informative and well researched.
Mankind no longer lives as simple hunter-gatherers, nor do they generally live in small relatively familial tribes. Even the founding fathers were light years from that human lifestyle. The rule of law and the state was firmly entrenched in 1791 America and not all of the founding fathers were of a single mind. The ambiguous language of the constitution is a result of that lack of unanimity and the resultant language of compromise. The rationale behind the revolution had a great deal to do with the interests of the wealthy colonials and those considerations translated to the Constitution. There were no simple hunter-gatherers involved in those decisions. They were the decisions of primarily wealthy statists all along.
Cletus
06-19-2016, 07:39 PM
There is very little ambiguous language in the Constitution.
Crepitus
06-19-2016, 07:45 PM
It just so happens to be true.
To provide people with an objective framework of acceptable conduct and to provide people with legal recourse after the fact.
Well there ya go then. Why are you worried about gun laws then if that's all they are for?
AeonPax
06-20-2016, 01:46 AM
Since the AR-15 is not a clip fed weapon, I agree. Ban high capacity clips... but leave our magazines alone.
`
Screw the semantics. It includes magazines. There is no need for any civilian weapon to have over eight to ten bullets incorporated into its design....none. Period.
Ethereal
06-20-2016, 01:50 AM
Well there ya go then. Why are you worried about gun laws then if that's all they are for?
For the same reason I'm worried about drug prohibition.
Because it's an unjust infringement on the rights of the individual and causes people great hardships as a result.
Ethereal
06-20-2016, 01:58 AM
Mankind no longer lives as simple hunter-gatherers, nor do they generally live in small relatively familial tribes.
Some still do, actually.
In any case, the state is not a necessary prerequisite for the establishment and preservation of viable social orders.
Even the founding fathers were light years from that human lifestyle. The rule of law and the state was firmly entrenched in 1791 America and not all of the founding fathers were of a single mind. The ambiguous language of the constitution is a result of that lack of unanimity and the resultant language of compromise. The rationale behind the revolution had a great deal to do with the interests of the wealthy colonials and those considerations translated to the Constitution. There were no simple hunter-gatherers involved in those decisions. They were the decisions of primarily wealthy statists all along.
If you're under the impression that I'm a fan of the US Constitution, allow me to disabuse you of that notion.
It's clearly a statist document meant to consolidate power and wealthy among the elite.
And the anti-federalists like Patrick Henry, Melancton Smith, Sam Adams, Thomas Paine, Luther Martin, etc., were right when they predicted it was result in factionalism, elitism, and imperialism.
Which is why I favor a much more decentralized political system.
AeonPax
06-20-2016, 02:02 AM
By some estimates, there may be as many as two million such weapons in private hands in America. If their "one purpose" was "killing humans", isn't it reasonable to expect that at least one of those weapons would be used for "killing humans" several times a day? Murders using rifles generally are rare; with so-called assault-style rifles, they probably constitute something like one- or two-percent of all murders in the U.S. on an annual basis. Yes, such firearms are subject to abuse and criminal mayhem, as are a thousand other things no one talks about banning. Analogies comparing the usefulness vs. inherent dangerousness of other commonly-owned items are dismissed as "false", without any attempts to logically support such an assertion; we are told, in effect, "They are different because they are different".
`
People (mainly men) will buy an AR-15 because they look cool and because the are deathly afraid of blacks, Latinos and anyone who is not a WASP.
Cletus
06-20-2016, 02:37 AM
`
People (mainly men) will buy an AR-15 because they look cool and because the are deathly afraid of blacks, Latinos and anyone who is not a WASP.
Do you collect your stupid statements and put them in a book?
Cletus
06-20-2016, 02:38 AM
`
Screw the semantics. It includes magazines. There is no need for any civilian weapon to have over eight to ten bullets incorporated into its design....none. Period.
According to you.
You developed your small arms expertise where and over how many years?
Peter1469
06-20-2016, 04:43 AM
`
Screw the semantics. It includes magazines. There is no need for any civilian weapon to have over eight to ten bullets incorporated into its design....none. Period.
Disagree.
stjames1_53
06-20-2016, 05:09 AM
The intent of the 2nd A was to keep the people as well armed as the government. That was our tool to use after the 1st failed us, or was under attack from the government.
I don't trust government, and neither did the Founding Fathers
AeonPax
06-20-2016, 06:17 AM
Disagree.
`
I just had this discussion with someone else, on another forum. It went this way; he posted a couple articles where the authors defended assault rifles and weapons with large clips/ magazines. I posted a couple articles that pointed out why neither is necessary. Then, he turned and started calling me all sorts of names. I don't reply to such people. There comes a point in many discussions and arguments whereby an impasse develops, where there is no clear winner/loser nor any right/wrong. This is one of those issues. It's a matter of perspective and personal bias. I haven't convinced them, they haven't convinced me. When such a stalemate develops, I find no utility in continuing the discussion.
stjames1_53
06-20-2016, 07:28 AM
You do realize that 99% of gun owners are not running around killing people, yet you would make US responsible for their actions.
Would you want to be arrested for rape, just because you have a penis?
Would you want to be locked up in your own home because the government ordains it for people on house arrest, even though you've broken no laws?
Would you surrender your 1st A because the government wants to ban all non-PC language?
The Bill of Rights are Individual in nature, not a collective privilege................
Crepitus
06-20-2016, 08:15 AM
For the same reason I'm worried about drug prohibition.
Because it's an unjust infringement on the rights of the individual and causes people great hardships as a result.
How is that possible if they are just for providing a blueprint of acceptable behavior and for punishment after the fact?
Truth Detector
06-20-2016, 08:22 AM
Granted, the '94 ban wasn't expanded but I'm talking long term in an environment of continuing mass shootings. If the rationale behind an "assault weapon" ban is to mitigate mass shootings then it seems to me that over time a complete gun ban is likely to become inevitable.
With a total civilian gun ban in China you still get knife wielding maniacs attacking schools and plus the Kunming train station attack in 2014. While it can be argued that casualties are less in such cases it still points out an underlying issue. Those bent on mass casualty attacks just seem to change tactics in the absence of more effective implements.
Lets presume for a moment that all semi-automatic firearms in civilian hands could be *poofed* out of existence in America. What prevents nut jobs from simply reverting to "beltway sniper" style tactics? Similar numbers of casualties, just stretched out over months instead of hours. That happens a few times and hunting rifles become "sniper rifles" which must be banned. Even single shot firearms could be used to that effect one way or another so eventually, if there's no way to stop mass murderers, logic would dictate that one class of firearms inevitably gets banned after another until they're all banned.
Gun control advocates keep assuring *most* gun owners that they can keep their guns but I don't see how that's possible if these mass killings can't be reigned in.
Is my logic faulty?
Your logic is spot on; the ultimate goal of the left is to ban ALL private ownership of guns. But being the despicable lying low-life class that they are, they will never be honest about that objective and attempt to use the courts to implement their unconstitutional agenda.
Therefore, expect them to continue stupidly wiping their asses with the second amendment.
Truth Detector
06-20-2016, 08:22 AM
Ransom of all people had a good point the other day. Limits on magazine capacity would likely have more effect than a gun ban.
Limits on magazine capacity will do NOTHING to make ANYONE safer from lunatics bent on creating terror, death and chaos.
Truth Detector
06-20-2016, 08:23 AM
How did humans survive for millions of years without guns?
You really are the most historically ignorant Liberul I have ever seen on a political forum. DERP
Truth Detector
06-20-2016, 08:25 AM
`
`
I support a permanent ban on high cap clips and the AR-15. Why? Those items are used for one purpose only; Killing Humans.
This is again, the dumbest thing Liberuls say about semi-automatic weapons thinking that lunatics cannot just carry more clips or modify one to fit their weapon.
DERP
Truth Detector
06-20-2016, 08:26 AM
`
I don't know what makes you such a worthless poster, but it's sure working.
^The definition of irony. It could only be more ironic if you said he lacked intelligence also. :biglaugh:
Truth Detector
06-20-2016, 08:27 AM
CNN wants to ban high velocity magazines. OK. I will give the left loons that one. :smiley:
I won't; if you think that will stop their attempts to destroy the 2nd, I have a bridge to sell you. ;)
Crepitus
06-20-2016, 08:42 AM
Limits on magazine capacity will do NOTHING to make ANYONE safer from lunatics bent on creating terror, death and chaos.
Sure they will. If nothing else we get a small chance to jump the bastard while he reloads.
stjames1_53
06-20-2016, 10:02 AM
Sure they will. If nothing else we get a small chance to jump the $#@! while he reloads.
huh...............really? Let's look at that statement.....
he wounded and killed approximately 100 people. I don't think they make a 100 rd. magazine. So he had to stop and reload at some point. Why is it no one did this amazing trick?
I've got a 10/22 with several magazines, different sizes. I can drop a mag that's empty and have a new one in the receiver without missing a beat. Limiting the size of something doesn't affect it one damned bit.
What we need is Muslim control. Remember, the last 7 major shootings were done by Muslims.
Nope, Muslim control is what we need. They are the ones that declared war on us. And you would seek to hamper Americans Right to defend not only themselves, but this country as well.
We heading right into a European kind of problem with the Muzzies.
Crepitus
06-20-2016, 10:41 AM
huh...............really? Let's look at that statement.....
he wounded and killed approximately 100 people. I don't think they make a 100 rd. magazine. So he had to stop and reload at some point. Why is it no one did this amazing trick?
I've got a 10/22 with several magazines, different sizes. I can drop a mag that's empty and have a new one in the receiver without missing a beat. Limiting the size of something doesn't affect it one damned bit.
What we need is Muslim control. Remember, the last 7 major shootings were done by Muslims.
Nope, Muslim control is what we need. They are the ones that declared war on us. And you would seek to hamper Americans Right to defend not only themselves, but this country as well.
We heading right into a European kind of problem with the Muzzies.
Just because these folks didn't doesn't mean somebody wouldn't.
Truth Detector
06-20-2016, 10:43 AM
`
Screw the semantics. It includes magazines. There is no need for any civilian weapon to have over eight to ten bullets incorporated into its design....none. Period.
The notion that limiting a magazine to 8 bullets will lead to fewer deaths at the hands of lunatics is about as moronic as lefties thinking criminals will respond to MORE laws. DERP
Truth Detector
06-20-2016, 10:44 AM
`
People (mainly men) will buy an AR-15 because they look cool and because the are deathly afraid of blacks, Latinos and anyone who is not a WASP.
Wrong again; but then, what else is new. :biglaugh:
Truth Detector
06-20-2016, 10:44 AM
Do you collect your stupid statements and put them in a book?
Great question. :laugh:
Truth Detector
06-20-2016, 10:46 AM
The intent of the 2nd A was to keep the people as well armed as the government. That was our tool to use after the 1st failed us, or was under attack from the government.
I don't trust government, and neither did the Founding Fathers
Willful idiots want to subject themselves to the will of the Government; at least until someone they disagree with takes over, then Government miraculously becomes bad and evil. Yes, Liberuls really are THAT F'ing dumb. :laugh:
Truth Detector
06-20-2016, 10:47 AM
Sure they will. If nothing else we get a small chance to jump the $#@! while he reloads.
Another display of incredible ignorance about reality. You vote Democratic right? :biglaugh:
Truth Detector
06-20-2016, 10:48 AM
Just because these folks didn't doesn't mean somebody wouldn't.
:biglaugh:
Crepitus
06-20-2016, 10:53 AM
Another display of incredible ignorance about reality. You vote Democratic right? :biglaugh:
You just wanna be insulting or you wanna tell me why.
decedent
06-20-2016, 11:03 AM
You really are the most historically ignorant Liberul I have ever seen on a political forum. DERP
The question remains unanswered. A few have struggled, but none have succeeded. Like you, most immediately admitted defeat.
Cletus
06-20-2016, 11:35 AM
`
There comes a point in many discussions and arguments whereby an impasse develops, where there is no clear winner/loser nor any right/wrong.
But there is a clear right or wrong in this case.
You are wrong.
domer76
06-20-2016, 12:37 PM
There can be no compromise with the gun-grabbers, reasonable or otherwise, because their ultimate goal is a complete ban on firearms or something approaching it.
Proposals to ban certain guns or magazines are just incremental steps towards the same goal of gun prohibition.
Guns add so much to the betterment of society, don't they? Really. Look how much better off the U.S. Is with one gun per person. Number one in the world in gun violence. Such a lofty goal.
stjames1_53
06-20-2016, 01:17 PM
Guns add so much to the betterment of society, don't they? Really. Look how much better off the U.S. Is with one gun per person. Number one in the world in gun violence. Such a lofty goal.
well, it's just too damned bad the genie is already out of the bottle.
Since the real criminals are not willing to follow any laws, codes, or pay severity of such actions, are we to disarm ourselves in light of this fact?
Bud, we have a war on our soil. They have come here, killing as many Americans as they can at one time. It is not my fault they are doing this, so I'm damned sure not going to compromise for something I haven't done. Takiing my firearm away from me isn't going to stop them. It's only going to make it easier.
When did you just give up and toss in the towel? You do know that each one of those Amendments are yours as well as mine. (If you're an American) If not, you're a subject, and we don't listen to the squealing of voluntary subjects
AeonPax
06-20-2016, 02:47 PM
But there is a clear right or wrong in this case. You are wrong.
`
That response made me laugh.
AeonPax
06-20-2016, 03:13 PM
You do realize that 99% of gun owners are not running around killing people, yet you would make US responsible for their actions.
Would you want to be arrested for rape, just because you have a penis?
Would you want to be locked up in your own home because the government ordains it for people on house arrest, even though you've broken no laws?
Would you surrender your 1st A because the government wants to ban all non-PC language?
The Bill of Rights are Individual in nature, not a collective privilege................
`
Ok......then why the hell are they against absolutely any restrictions to gun purchasing? Surely these fine outstanding citizens see the logical rationale behind such an idea?....or maybe not. Maybe the group of gun owners you refer to are scared little pussy's too frightened to confront reality unless it is at the point of a gun. The advent of the wimpy little gun nut, has degraded masculinity whereby only a gun can show the world they are men...false men, that is.
Ethereal
06-20-2016, 03:47 PM
How is that possible if they are just for providing a blueprint of acceptable behavior and for punishment after the fact?
Because punishment after the fact is still punishment.
Truth Detector
06-20-2016, 03:51 PM
You just wanna be insulting or you wanna tell me why.
You really need someone to tell you why this is moronic? " If nothing else we get a small chance to jump the $#@! while he reloads."
Truth Detector
06-20-2016, 03:51 PM
The question remains unanswered. A few have struggled, but none have succeeded. Like you, most immediately admitted defeat.
:biglaugh:
Truth Detector
06-20-2016, 03:52 PM
Guns add so much to the betterment of society, don't they? Really. Look how much better off the U.S. Is with one gun per person. Number one in the world in gun violence. Such a lofty goal.
The US isn't number one in gun violence and if you had even the slightest clue of what you are erupting about, you would know this. But hey, keep clinging to that moronic "guns are bad" stupidity.....as if a gun ban would stop lunatics from trying to kill people.
nic34
06-20-2016, 03:56 PM
The feds get one gun, the door is open to the rest of them.
The ol' Domino theory as practiced by those that never learn from history.
stjames1_53
06-20-2016, 04:04 PM
`
Ok......then why the hell are they against absolutely any restrictions to gun purchasing? Surely these fine outstanding citizens see the logical rationale behind such an idea?....or maybe not. Maybe the group of gun owners you refer to are scared little $#@!'s too frightened to confront reality unless it is at the point of a gun. The advent of the wimpy little gun nut, has degraded masculinity whereby only a gun can show the world they are men...false men, that is.
I'm not. But why should I pay the price for the actions of one man?
And bucko, just for the record, I have faced men with guns trying to kill me. Funny, that you consider our men and women heroes for carrying a gun...........I've done that.
Been there.
You're the one pissing your pants because of guns, not me.
You're the one reduced to name calling and insults....the dying breath of an argument....RIP, dude.
Cletus
06-20-2016, 04:48 PM
`
That response made me laugh.
I am very happy for you.
You are still wrong.
Dr. Who
06-20-2016, 05:09 PM
The intent of the 2nd A was to keep the people as well armed as the government. That was our tool to use after the 1st failed us, or was under attack from the government.
I don't trust government, and neither did the Founding Fathers
Were that the intent, each citizen should have been issued a cannon in addition to all of the necessary weapons to wage equal war. That didn't happen. In fact, the militia members were required to provide their own weapons. They were also considered undisciplined and thus the word regulated appears in the Constitution. Despite that, the State training they received was inadequate and a standing army was created. Realistically the difference between swords and hunting rifles, versus somewhat better swords and better rifles, plus cannons was not that great back then. The people could have easily overwhelmed the standing army through sheer numbers. That's much more difficult now with drone warfare, armored personnel carriers, bombs, chemical warfare etc. It just depends on how determined the government would be to defeat the insurrectionists.
donttread
06-20-2016, 05:15 PM
Its not the object its the intent and aside from that this country is unable to stop ILLEGAL guns flowing into the USA untethered.
Liberals want an open border for VOTES thats the same reason we have as much illegal drugs in the USA as we do, and would have illegal guns.
Gun control is not practicle because the guns are already here. We can't even stop whole people from crossing the border and going anywhere they wish. It's just like prohibition , it doesn't fucking work.
Cletus
06-20-2016, 05:23 PM
Were that the intent, each citizen should have been issued a cannon in addition to all of the necessary weapons to wage equal war.
The Framers specifically excluded cannon from protection under the Second Amendment. They thought it was okay for towns to have their own cannons, but not individuals. They actually discussed this at length and it was Madison who suggested that limitation.
That didn't happen. In fact, the militia members were required to provide their own weapons.
Now you are starting to get it.
The rest of your post isn't really relevant.
Dr. Who
06-20-2016, 05:32 PM
The Framers specifically excluded cannon from protection under the Second Amendment. They thought it was okay for towns to have their own cannons, but not individuals. They actually discussed this at length and it was Madison who suggested that limitation.
Now you are starting to get it.
The rest of your post isn't really relevant.
It's relevant that citizen owned weapons are utterly inadequate against today's military and a government that decides to play hardball.
Cletus
06-20-2016, 05:33 PM
It's relevant that citizen owned weapons are utterly inadequate against today's military and a government that decides to play hardball.
It would be if that were true, but it is not.
Common Sense
06-20-2016, 05:35 PM
It would be if that were true, but it is not.
It's not true?
People go on and on about how these aren't military grade weapons.
Seems like you're trying to have it both ways.
Dr. Who
06-20-2016, 05:36 PM
It would be if that were true, but it is not.
Are you sure? Given who is controlling governments these days, if it all hit the fan, I wouldn't count on anything.
Crepitus
06-20-2016, 05:44 PM
Because punishment after the fact is still punishment.
as it would be if more gun control laws were enacted. We have them for deterrent effect, because nobody likes to be punished.
I think your main point is that the laws under discussion here are ones that you disagree with, and the rest of this stuff is simply rationalization so you don't have to admit it.
Crepitus
06-20-2016, 05:47 PM
You really need someone to tell you why this is moronic? " If nothing else we get a small chance to jump the $#@! while he reloads."
I'm sorry, but I cant see any point (other than the one on top of your head) to this discussion.
Have a nice day!
Cletus
06-20-2016, 07:35 PM
It's not true?
People go on and on about how these aren't military grade weapons.
Seems like you're trying to have it both ways.
Not at all. A military issue M-16 or M-4 has features the AR-15 doesn't have, but that certainly does not make the AR-15 ineffective or inferior.
Cletus
06-20-2016, 07:35 PM
Are you sure? Given who is controlling governments these days, if it all hit the fan, I wouldn't count on anything.
I am not sure where you are going with that.
Dr. Who
06-20-2016, 08:00 PM
I am not sure where you are going with that.
That whole one world government thing is not a matter of fiction. Governments are controlled by global financial interests. It's pretty blatant these days. As much as you may think that America is independent, it is just as owned as any other western nation, if not more so. If push comes to shove, the master is not really the President, nor Congress, it is the global banking sector. If they decide that any American insurrection needs to be squashed like a bug, it will happen. Unlike the ME, America represents purchasing ability. American sheep will not be allowed to stray because it will represent too much of a hit to the bottom line. America will not be allowed to limit government and any attempt to do so will be met with extreme resistance, because it would be too independent. Even if no American military is involved in the war, there are enough military and mercenary types around the world to bash the people into compliance. We are not in Kansas anymore. Don't be fooled that the dalliances in the ME is the limit. Not by a long shot. The ME is just a game for these people. If they wanted the ME to be squashed like a bug, it would have happened a long time ago. They are just making money off the warfare. Their only value is in military weapons sales and fossil fuels. As long as both are being fulfilled, they can fight for the next 1000 years. Any attacks on western countries is a good thing, because it both increases the police state and increases the sales of weapons.
Cthulhu
06-20-2016, 08:00 PM
`
Screw the semantics. It includes magazines. There is no need for any civilian weapon to have over eight to ten bullets incorporated into its design....none. Period.
Make sure the police and military advise by this as well and you might have a point.
Sent from my evil, baby seal-clubbing cellphone.
Cthulhu
06-20-2016, 08:05 PM
Sure they will. If nothing else we get a small chance to jump the $#@! while he reloads.
Do you realize how fast some people can reload if they train a little?
Even revolvers have speed reloaders.
I can reload hella fast.
Sent from my evil, baby seal-clubbing cellphone.
Cthulhu
06-20-2016, 08:09 PM
It's relevant that citizen owned weapons are utterly inadequate against today's military and a government that decides to play hardball.
Than why are we still having problems in the ME?
They are vastly out gunned, yet they still give the US military a run for its money.
That's right, the world spookiest monster is given pause by some throwbacks with popguns.
So riddle me as to why that is.
Sent from my evil, baby seal-clubbing cellphone.
Crepitus
06-20-2016, 08:10 PM
Do you realize how fast some people can reload if they train a little?
Even revolvers have speed reloaders.
I can reload hella fast.
Sent from my evil, baby seal-clubbing cellphone.
Yes, some people can reload really fast. But in a crowd, trying to watch your surroundings, people screaming, adrenaline pumping, fumbling mags from your pockets...........
Cthulhu
06-20-2016, 08:14 PM
Yes, some people can reload really fast. But in a crowd, trying to watch your surroundings, people screaming, adrenaline pumping, fumbling mags from your pockets...........
Cthulhu doesn't fumble with his mags.
Cthulhu's rig would be designed for rapid access.
A little bit of sewing or a trip to opsgear would get me set up for what i would need.
The rest is just practice.
Sent from my evil, baby seal-clubbing cellphone.
Private Pickle
06-20-2016, 08:19 PM
Yes, some people can reload really fast. But in a crowd, trying to watch your surroundings, people screaming, adrenaline pumping, fumbling mags from your pockets...........
You know it almost sounds as if you're coming up with reasons to not intervene.
Dr. Who
06-20-2016, 08:19 PM
Than why are we still having problems in the ME?
They are vastly out gunned, yet they still give the US military a run for its money.
That's right, the world spookiest monster is given pause by some throwbacks with popguns.
So riddle me as to why that is.
Sent from my evil, baby seal-clubbing cellphone.
See my further post. They are just playing around in the ME. If the powers that be wanted to stop the warfare, they could do so. Millions would die, but the war would be over. They would however make sure that the oil refineries were not destroyed. They (the global financial sector and the military industrial complex) are just making too much money to stop the warfare. In fact, they are probably inflaming it deliberately. The resultant exodis of people is weakening western governments and making them even more dependent on world bank financing, thus diminishing their independence from the banking sector. It's all going along to plan. This is how the world becomes ruled by the financial oligarchs. Look forward to the eventual emergence of the Acme world government.
stjames1_53
06-20-2016, 09:47 PM
Yes, some people can reload really fast. But in a crowd, trying to watch your surroundings, people screaming, adrenaline pumping, fumbling mags from your pockets...........
....unless you were calm and determined..............very determined.
with all the disruption you create in a small enclosed space, people would be running from you. Only the dedicated can effectively return fire......but 12 guns in that place probably would have made a difference to most,...IMHO.....
Crepitus
06-20-2016, 10:12 PM
Cthulhu doesn't fumble with his mags.
Cthulhu's rig would be designed for rapid access.
A little bit of sewing or a trip to opsgear would get me set up for what i would need.
The rest is just practice.
Sent from my evil, baby seal-clubbing cellphone.
I'ma give you the benefit if the doubt here and say "OK, you don't fumble mags when reloading". Good possibility other people would though.
Crepitus
06-20-2016, 10:14 PM
You know it almost sounds as if you're coming up with reasons to not intervene.
? What? I'm telling you you can find a point to intervene.
AeonPax
06-21-2016, 01:06 AM
I am very happy for you. You are still wrong.
`
Your opinion, which on the scale of 1 to 10 (ten being the highest) rates a -2.
Cletus
06-21-2016, 01:10 AM
`
Your opinion, which on the scale of 1 to 10 (ten being the highest) rates a -2.
Nah. You were flapping your gums on a subject about which you know little or nothing.
You were wrong.
Instead of getting petty about it, you should just try to get better.
AeonPax
06-21-2016, 01:12 AM
Nah. You were flapping your gums on a subject about which you know little or nothing.You were wrong.Instead of getting petty about it, you should just try to get better.
`
Prove it. Until then, your are but empty words.
Cletus
06-21-2016, 01:15 AM
`
Prove it. Until then, your are but empty words.
Your posts themselves, are the best possible evidence.
AeonPax
06-21-2016, 01:18 AM
Your posts themselves, are the best possible evidence.
`
In other words, you have no evidence or proof. Your opinions are not facts, sorry.
Cletus
06-21-2016, 01:20 AM
`
In other words, you have no evidence or proof. Your opinions are not facts, sorry.
Whatever gets you through the night. If ignoring the facts is what it takes, go for it. It is not like it would be the first time for you.
Cthulhu
06-21-2016, 06:44 AM
See my further post. They are just playing around in the ME. If the powers that be wanted to stop the warfare, they could do so. Millions would die, but the war would be over. They would however make sure that the oil refineries were not destroyed. They (the global financial sector and the military industrial complex) are just making too much money to stop the warfare. In fact, they are probably inflaming it deliberately. The resultant exodis of people is weakening western governments and making them even more dependent on world bank financing, thus diminishing their independence from the banking sector. It's all going along to plan. This is how the world becomes ruled by the financial oligarchs. Look forward to the eventual emergence of the Acme world government.
I agree with you.
*Gives tin foil hat*
You'll be needing it. But seriously, most people simply cannot arrive to that conclusion through logical deduction on their own.
Sent from my evil, baby seal-clubbing cellphone.
Ethereal
06-21-2016, 12:47 PM
as it would be if more gun control laws were enacted. We have them for deterrent effect, because nobody likes to be punished.
Yea, just look at how successfully drug laws have deterred the manufacture and distribution of illegal drugs.
I think your main point is that the laws under discussion here are ones that you disagree with, and the rest of this stuff is simply rationalization so you don't have to admit it.
That must be it.
Ethereal
06-21-2016, 12:50 PM
See my further post. They are just playing around in the ME.
Playing around? What?
If the powers that be wanted to stop the warfare, they could do so. Millions would die, but the war would be over. They would however make sure that the oil refineries were not destroyed. They (the global financial sector and the military industrial complex) are just making too much money to stop the warfare. In fact, they are probably inflaming it deliberately. The resultant exodis of people is weakening western governments and making them even more dependent on world bank financing, thus diminishing their independence from the banking sector. It's all going along to plan. This is how the world becomes ruled by the financial oligarchs. Look forward to the eventual emergence of the Acme world government.
Except they cannot do that because it would strip them of the veil of moral legitimacy that serves as their justification for ruling.
Without people believing they have a legitimate right to rule, almost nobody would obey them, including their servant classes.
Crepitus
06-21-2016, 03:16 PM
Yea, just look at how successfully drug laws have deterred the manufacture and distribution of illegal drugs.
That must be it.
But you just said that as what laws were for?
Ethereal
06-21-2016, 03:19 PM
But you just said that as what laws were for?
I don't understand this sentence.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.8 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.