Dakryn's Batshit Theory of the Week

[zabu of nΩd]

Jon Stewart kicks ass.

 

[Dak]

It's not like this is a new phenomena. Where was Jon Stewart last Pres. election on the same shit?

 

[The Emptier]

Yeah I remember seeing some video breaking down the amount of time candidates had on television, it was messed up

 

[zabu of nΩd]

It's not like this is a new phenomena. Where was Jon Stewart last Pres. election on the same shit?

OMG HE'S PART OF THE CONSPIRACY TOO

Relax dude, he's not perfect and he's still got managers to obey.

 

[Dak]

OMG HE'S PART OF THE CONSPIRACY TOO

Relax dude, he's not perfect and he's still got managers to obey.

I agree, and Ron Paul is also not perfect. The point is Ron Paul is right about the initially conceived state of the USA, and Jon Stewart is correct about FOXnews.

This does not preclude the the reality that both people are wrong(imo obviously) in different, respective areas.

 

[The Emptier]

The last clip from CNN was rude.

 

[Saparmurat_Niyazov]

I thought you wanted the response of right-wingers? I am an anarchist.

There are different types of anarchists, and they can be left or right leaning. BTW, I thought you were more of a "sovereign movement" type or maybe a constitutionalist/libertarian.
About what Warren Buffet said: the repugnanticans hate it. I've already heard their complaints.

 

[Einherjar86]

If "right" is subjective, the question is not about means of coercion, but the coercion itself. The means are irrelevant.

That shouldn't convince anyone of the legitimacy of gun ownership/possession.

The author's proposal only works in one specific situation. If all we're looking to avoid is confrontation, a gun will only work in a situation where one person is in possession and the other isn't. If two contenders possess firearms, this will likely instigate confrontation. Furthermore, one person in possession of a firearm doesn't guarantee that the other won't try to fight back, depending on how stalwart that other person's "reason" is.

Lastly, if it's decided that everyone should own a firearm, then they no longer provide this mystical edge in combat, and their function proposed in the article ceases to exist.

 

[SentinelSlain]

I thought you wanted the response of right-wingers? I am an anarchist.

Yeah but I still wonder what you think about it.

 

[Dak]

That shouldn't convince anyone of the legitimacy of gun ownership/possession.

The author's proposal only works in one specific situation. If all we're looking to avoid is confrontation, a gun will only work in a situation where one person is in possession and the other isn't.

Guns work best when all parties are in possession. MAD. One person being in possession and another person not is no different than one person being bigger/stronger/etc., and the other one at a disadvantage.

If two contenders possess firearms, this will likely instigate confrontation.

Interesting assumption. That's why the US and the USSR blew each other away right?

Furthermore, one person in possession of a firearm doesn't guarantee that the other won't try to fight back, depending on how stalwart that other person's "reason" is.

So what is your point? The main premise of the article is that guns put people on even ground, regardless of size, etc. , and encourage sane people to pursue discourse instead coercion. To take issue with this premise by mentioning that some people are insane/unreasonable, only strengthens the gun ownership position, it does not weaken it.

Lastly, if it's decided that everyone should own a firearm, then they no longer provide this mystical edge in combat, and their function proposed in the article ceases to exist.

See my first statement. The very purposes is to remove the "edge". Guns are the "equalizer".


@Sentinel: Taxes support the state, they do not support people. Therefore I am not interested in taxes on anyone. To be clear, Warren Buffet is doing nothing more than covering his ass, as the "rich" are an easier target for the displaced masses looking for someone to blame. He, like many others, have enriched themselves at the expense of others by using the tools of market manipulation afforded them by the existence of the state.

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

The right to own a gun is based on the right to self-defense, i.e., the right to those means to defend oneself against those who wish to destroy one’s life. It would be absurd to say one has the right to life, but does not have the right to the means necessary to protect that life. It would be like saying one has the right to life, but not the right to purchase food. This is what opponents to the right to own a gun are really against, which is the right to life.

When it comes down to it it's the right to life that is ignored in the debate over the right to bear arms, both by its opponents, and by its defenders.

 

[Einherjar86]

Guns work best when all parties are in possession. MAD. One person being in possession and another person not is no different than one person being bigger/stronger/etc., and the other one at a disadvantage.

It's very different. It takes a lot more effort to kill someone with your bare hands than it does with a firearm.

Interesting assumption. That's why the US and the USSR blew each other away right?

Irrelevant and faulty analogy; two individual human beings engaged in a confrontation and two opposing political/national bodies are entirely different things.

So what is your point? The main premise of the article is that guns put people on even ground, regardless of size, etc. , and encourage sane people to pursue discourse instead coercion. To take issue with this premise by mentioning that some people are insane/unreasonable, only strengthens the gun ownership position, it does not weaken it.

See my first statement. The very purposes is to remove the "edge". Guns are the "equalizer".

They don't equalize anything, in my opinion. A scrawny, ninety-pound woman with a handgun has far more advantage than a two-hundred-pound man. I don't see any equality in that.

 

[Dak]

It's very different. It takes a lot more effort to kill someone with your bare hands than it does with a firearm.

While it is physically easier to pull a trigger than to choke someone/beat someone, that supports the initial premise. I don't know what you are arguing.

Irrelevant and faulty analogy; two individual human beings engaged in a confrontation and two opposing political/national bodies are entirely different things.

Even assuming the analogy is irrelevant and faulty (which I do not, but that discussion will take us off track), you still have not backed up your assumption that I was addressing.

They don't equalize anything, in my opinion. A scrawny, ninety-pound woman with a handgun has far more advantage than a two-hundred-pound man. I don't see any equality in that.

In this example you give, there was intially an advantage on one side, now the advantage has merely switched sides. From an objective position this is no better or worse than the original situation. However, a gun in both hands does equalize the situation.

@Jimmy: I agree, but since we live in a world that seeks to force the beliefs of the majority or very vocal minorities onto the rest, one must point out the mutual benefits of various things. It is ironic, to me, that the very same people who are "anti-gun", have no problem when guns are used by agents acting coercivily on their behalf.

 

[Einherjar86]

While it is physically easier to pull a trigger than to choke someone/beat someone, that supports the initial premise. I don't know what you are arguing.

First: I'm arguing that even if the advantage switches to the ninety-pound woman, there's nothing equal. Guns don't act as "equalizers," as you claimed.

Second: if both parties hold firearms, they are only equal insofar as both parties are willing to listen to reason. You said that insane people only prove your point, but not when all parties are in possession of firearms. If two people in a dispute are aiming guns at each other, and one is trying to act "reasonable" while the other isn't, there is a disadvantage here. Bestowing firearms upon every individual does not ensure that a reasonable course will be taken (if we're considering minimal loss of life to be "reason").

Third: the type of world you're describing wherein people must interact with one another through presentation of potential force or coercion is not a society I want to live in. I don't want to have a gun pulled on me every time I say "excuse me" in the street; to which, in response, I must bare my own pistol and explain that I'm only intending to ask the time.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

No reasonable person would draw their gun unless they were forced to. That's why I believe in test and history checks as well as updated training and meetings.

You, on the other hand, are giving the people who buy and carry guns illegally an advantage over law abiding citizens. I lived in Brooklyn, the Bronx and Queens and I've seen a fair amount of robberies in stores and on the train where people were either shot or killed by a person with no regard for the law and if one or two people on that train or in that store had a legal concealed weapon it would have saved lives.

 

[Einherjar86]

No reasonable person...

Exactly; that's the issue I have a problem with. You can run background checks all you want, but then we still have the problem of some becoming "unreasonable" after having already obtained a permit to carry a firearm. I suppose we could institute annual psychiatric tests, but this is starting to seem very... "statist."

Regardless you're giving the people who buy and carry guns illegally an advantage over law abiding citizens. I lived in Brooklyn, the Bronx and Queens and I've seen a fair amount of robberies in stores and on the train where people were either shot or killed and if one or two people on that train or in that store had a legal concealed weapon it would have saved lives.

I'm not saying there aren't situations in which a firearm could prove useful. I'm only arguing that there is an equally negative flip-side to encouraging gun ownership that is often glossed over because, somehow, reason will prevail if we have guns.

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

I see your point and I thought about that too, but dude, we give people cars and look what they do with them. Should we deny people cars or just give demanding test?

Seems a middle ground for both guns and cars would give access to people who are responsible enough to use either safely while screening out some of those who really should not be operating dangerous machinery.

 

[Einherjar86]

The only problem with any middle ground is how much it relies on government intervention; I don't want to have my sanity tested annually to determine whether or not I can own a firearm (or drive a car, for that matter).

Of course, I think I'm perfectly well-equipped and stable enough to own a gun; but I can't speak for others. I might think that people over seventy should have to go through screening, but they might find that offensive. Who judges the qualifications?

Also, I see what you're saying about risky behavior; but the value of a car presents itself far more frequently and positively than that of a gun.

 

[Dak]

First: I'm arguing that even if the advantage switches to the ninety-pound woman, there's nothing equal. Guns don't act as "equalizers," as you claimed.

I already addressed this. There is no point in repeating the statement.

Second: if both parties hold firearms, they are only equal insofar as both parties are willing to listen to reason. You said that insane people only prove your point, but not when all parties are in possession of firearms. If two people in a dispute are aiming guns at each other, and one is trying to act "reasonable" while the other isn't, there is a disadvantage here. Bestowing firearms upon every individual does not ensure that a reasonable course will be taken (if we're considering minimal loss of life to be "reason").

No one said it would ensure reasonable course of action(non-coercion) in every situation. It encourages it, and exists for defence when it does not take place.

Third: the type of world you're describing wherein people must interact with one another through presentation of potential force or coercion is not a society I want to live in. I don't want to have a gun pulled on me every time I say "excuse me" in the street; to which, in response, I must bare my own pistol and explain that I'm only intending to ask the time.

The underlined portion is amusing because we already live in a world like this. Even assuming that we did not, and that allowing open access to guns would cause it to be that way, wishing to use the power of the state (which is only enforced through guns, lol) to force other people not to own guns, is the no different than pointing a gun at someone yourself to prevent them from being able to defend themself from your other attempts at coercion.

I hope this is another occasion where you merely play devil's advocate for fun.