The gun lobby is deranged

[dogtowner]

^^^^ I guess I don't understand conservative humor. Is this supposed to show irony? sarcasm? hypocrisy? I know it spoils a joke if you have to explain it. But could you explain it anyway. What is so funny? But if it is not a joke, could you explain the message?

all of the above not to mention the actual reason for this zeal over assault weapons. hand guns kill remarkably more people but no hue and cry over that. pols fear assault rifles as they seem to think its the weapon of choice to be used on them.

 

[Lagboltz]

If you can't figure it out on your own, there is nothing I can say will help you. Sorry. You are too far gone.

Ah ha. Just as I thought. You guys don't get it either.

Maybe people in the background have hand guns. Obama is surrounded by secret service who all have hand guns. The picture above is just a statement to that effect. Obama's statement is surely not referring to the secret service. It is more likely referring to those in the background. So he obviously feels less safe with the guns in the crowd. But the guns of the SS make him safer. So what. It's just trite. So how is that funny?

 

[Gipper]

Ah ha. Just as I thought. You guys don't get it either.

Maybe people in the background have hand guns. Obama is surrounded by secret service who all have hand guns. The picture above is just a statement to that effect. Obama's statement is surely not referring to the secret service. It is more likely referring to those in the background. So he obviously feels less safe with the guns in the crowd. But the guns of the SS make him safer. So what. It's just trite. So how is that funny?

It is not meant to funny. It is meant to show the hypocrisy of the state. Why can't you see the hypocrisy? Have you become so inured by the State that its blatant hypocrisy is invisible to you?
If so, you would do well in the age of kings and dictators...accepting of tyranny is your lot.

 

[dogtowner]

It is not meant to funny. It is meant to show the hypocrisy of the state. Why can't you see the hypocrisy? Have you become so inured by the State that its blatant hypocrisy is invisible to you?
If so, you would do well in the age of kings and dictators...accepting of tyranny is your lot.

good for thee but not for me...

 

[Lagboltz]

It is not meant to funny. It is meant to show the hypocrisy of the state. Why can't you see the hypocrisy? Have you become so inured by the State that its blatant hypocrisy is invisible to you?
If so, you would do well in the age of kings and dictators...accepting of tyranny is your lot.

I can understand hypocrisy, professing to have a belief that one does not have. Obama's said "guns make us less save", obviously referring to the civilian population. There have been many assassinations, or attempts on presidents -- far more than the population at large. So he feels safe that the SS, a sort of paramilitary group, has guns to prevent assassinations.

So do you guys think it still hypocrisy that the army and marines have guns too? Or maybe maybe you guys think it's hypocrisy that the president didn't have Bin Laden killed by clubs.

 

[GenSeneca]

Sorry. Laws have to apply to the virtuous as well as everyone else. Hard to tell when somebody's brain will flip out.

We already ban grenade launchers, antiaircraft missiles, etc. I think the bar is too low. Need to raise it to include assault rifles. As far as a dead child body count, I haven't thought about it.

We never know who is going to be "law abiding" do we.

If you dearly want an assault rifle, I don't trust you.

You still managed to reply without answering a single question... So lets try another question... Is it moral to initiate force against others?

 

[Lagboltz]

You still managed to reply without answering a single question... So lets try another question... Is it moral to initiate force against others?

To me, with a mind of a liberal, your questions are inane. Sometimes like the old, "Have you stopped beating your wife?"
The answer to your current question is a simple, "sometimes." I think you know what I mean by that.

 

[GenSeneca]

To me, with a mind of a liberal, your questions are inane. Sometimes like the old, "Have you stopped beating your wife?"

A loaded question is a question which contains a controversial or unjustified assumption (e.g., a presumption of guilt).​

The question I asked is not loaded, either you think it's moral to initiate force against others or you do not.

The answer to your current question is a simple, "sometimes." I think you know what I mean by that.

I don't know what you mean... When is it moral to initiate force against others? A specific example would be wonderful.

 

[Lagboltz]

A loaded question is a question which contains a controversial or unjustified assumption (e.g., a presumption of guilt).
The question I asked is not loaded, either you think it's moral to initiate force against others or you do not.

I was talking about your previous questions not your current one.

I don't know what you mean... When is it moral to initiate force against others? A specific example would be wonderful.

When you catch someone beating your wife.

 

[GenSeneca]

I was talking about your previous questions not your current one.

Ah.. I see... You think asking how many children can die at the hands of a mass shooter before you stop pushing to ban firearms is a loaded question. You claim that you don't want to completely eviscerate the right to keep and bear arms yet you cannot explain at what point you will no longer pursue that course of action. That's the purpose of the question. If there is some type of firearm you would NOT support being banned, no matter how many innocent children might be murdered with that type of firearm, then it demonstrates that there is some point at which you would no longer push for further gun bans. I have yet to see any indication that you have such a point.

When you catch someone beating your wife.

Like Bobby, you seem to be confused on the concept of initiating the use of force. If someone started beating your wife, it's that person who has initiated the use of force. Using force to stop that person is Self Defense and that's the only moral use of force that exists.

 

[Lagboltz]

Ah.. I see... You think asking how many children can die at the hands of a mass shooter before you stop pushing to ban firearms is a loaded question. You claim that you don't want to completely eviscerate the right to keep and bear arms yet you cannot explain at what point you will no longer pursue that course of action. That's the purpose of the question. If there is some type of firearm you would NOT support being banned, no matter how many innocent children might be murdered with that type of firearm, then it demonstrates that there is some point at which you would no longer push for further gun bans. I have yet to see any indication that you have such a point.

I was against assault rifles before the recent shooting of kids. The number of kids shot recently has no bearing on that. So your question about the number is not relevant.

Like Bobby, you seem to be confused on the concept of initiating the use of force. If someone started beating your wife, it's that person who has initiated the use of force. Using force to stop that person is Self Defense and that's the only moral use of force that exists.

It sounds like wife defense, not self-defense.

 

[Gipper]

I can understand hypocrisy, professing to have a belief that one does not have. Obama's said "guns make us less save", obviously referring to the civilian population. There have been many assassinations, or attempts on presidents -- far more than the population at large. So he feels safe that the SS, a sort of paramilitary group, has guns to prevent assassinations.

So do you guys think it still hypocrisy that the army and marines have guns too? Or maybe maybe you guys think it's hypocrisy that the president didn't have Bin Laden killed by clubs.

The hypocrisy is your beloved leader is demanding law abiding Americans give up their gun rights and ability to protect themselves and their families, but dear leader and his family are fully protected by men with guns. Does this not seem a bit hypocritical to you? If not, put your dunce cap on and sit in the corner.

As I say, you would do fine under a monarchy or dictatorship.

 

[GenSeneca]

I was against assault rifles before the recent shooting of kids. The number of kids shot recently has no bearing on that. So your question about the number is not relevant.

You're still avoiding the question... At what point will you no longer support further bans? That question is relevant.

It sounds like wife defense, not self-defense.

You ignored the point I was making, that someone else initiated the use of force in your scenario, not you. So I'll ask again, when do you believe it's moral for one person to initiate the use of force against another?

The flip side of a ban is a mandate, perhaps that will help you to understand... Rather than a ban, let's say our government were proposing to mandate that you own and carry an assault rifle, could you make the case that such a proposal is immoral? Mine would be the same it is now, it is immoral to initiate the use of force against others - whether banning guns or mandating their possession, it's still an act of initiating the use of force against others, compelling them to do something against their will and under threat of losing their life, liberty and/or property if they refuse.

 

[Gipper]

And Laggy...it is apparent you have no problem with the state having unlimited gun rights, but you want to limit citizens gun rights. Why so intolerant and bigoted? I thought you libs were all about tolerance and understanding...(not really). Why have you failed to learn from history? Do you not know the biggest mass murderers in history are ALWAYS the state?

 

[Lagboltz]

You're still avoiding the question... At what point will you no longer support further bans? That question is relevant.

The answer is: I don't know. You are trying to pin me down to a rigid black and white criteria. I have no idea what will happen in the future.

You ignored the point I was making, that someone else initiated the use of force in your scenario, not you. So I'll ask again, when do you believe it's moral for one person to initiate the use of force against another?

Suppose my wife initiated banging a hammer on the other person for no reason and the other person was defending himself by beating my wife, and I decide to come to the defense of my errant wife.

You are trying to make black and white decisions. The world never is.

The flip side of a ban is a mandate, perhaps that will help you to understand... Rather than a ban, let's say our government were proposing to mandate that you own and carry an assault rifle, could you make the case that such a proposal is immoral? Mine would be the same it is now, it is immoral to initiate the use of force against others - whether banning guns or mandating their possession, it's still an act of initiating the use of force against others, compelling them to do something against their will and under threat of losing their life, liberty and/or property if they refuse.

It looks like you are advocating resolute Libertarianism. That's not for me. You can carry your argument to other extremes. Like the government is using force on you by banning you from building atomic weapons.