The gun lobby is deranged

[dogtowner]

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.

is it actually banned ? I just thought it was prohibitively expensive.
I made one as a science project when I was a kid. Non-functional. Got an A.
Plans were from Popular Mechanics.

 

[GenSeneca]

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.

Then the slippery slope argument is valid, as even you have no idea how far down that slope you're willing to go.

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.

What's the point of adding a third person? Mine was that the person who initiated the use of force is in the wrong, that initiating the use of force against others is immoral. You wanted to argue that initiating the use of force against others could "sometimes" be moral but you have yet to offer even one example.

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

Either it is moral to initiate the use of force against others or it is not. You said that it was moral "sometimes" but can't offer an example of when that sometime might be. I have said that it's never moral and I'm prepared to defend that position.

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.

What I'm arguing has not changed: It is immoral to initiate the use of force against others. What I advocate for also has not changed: A society based on volitional consent and mutually beneficial exchange, a society where it is not legal to initiate the use of force against others. Perhaps that's not for you, perhaps you like the thought of being able to impose your will on others by force but I have a feeling you aren't supportive of others imposing their will on you by force.

 

[Lagboltz]

is it actually banned ? I just thought it was prohibitively expensive.
I made one as a science project when I was a kid. Non-functional. Got an A.
Plans were from Popular Mechanics.

I would think you would get an A only if it were functional. You should have got at most a B+.

 

[Lagboltz]

Then the slippery slope argument is valid, as even you have no idea how far down that slope you're willing to go.

Ah yes. The world of decisions is full of slippery slopes in all directions that are constantly changing.

What's the point of adding a third person? Mine was that the person who initiated the use of force is in the wrong, that initiating the use of force against others is immoral. You wanted to argue that initiating the use of force against others could "sometimes" be moral but you have yet to offer even one example.

My adding the third person illustrates that proceeding along black and white lines doesn't work when there really are gray areas.

Either it is moral to initiate the use of force against others or it is not. You said that it was moral "sometimes" but can't offer an example of when that sometime might be. I have said that it's never moral and I'm prepared to defend that position.

Either it is or isn't is too black and white. Morality is dependent on the cultural ethos and is often a gray area. You might be familiar with the so called "Trolley problem" which illustrates a different sort of moral dilemma.

What I'm arguing has not changed: It is immoral to initiate the use of force against others. What I advocate for also has not changed: A society based on volitional consent and mutually beneficial exchange, a society where it is not legal to initiate the use of force against others. Perhaps that's not for you, perhaps you like the thought of being able to impose your will on others by force but I have a feeling you aren't supportive of others imposing their will on you by force.

I'm game. Suppose the situation is black and white. I agree that it is immoral for a person to initiate physical harm to someone who does not want it, such as rape.

Now what.

 

[Iolo2]

I think he might hold the gun on the husband until he had him tied up..AND THEN RAPE THE WIFE..that's how they do it in the movies..

Porn movies, doubtless. I am terribly respectable and avoid them. What is the wife doing while the lord and master is being tied up, and is the rapist holding the pop-gun in his mouth? It sounds a bit like Reservoir Dogs in terms of what is alleged to happen!

 

[Lagboltz]

Porn movies, doubtless. I am terribly respectable and avoid them. What is the wife doing while the lord and master is being tied up, and is the rapist holding the pop-gun in his mouth? It sounds a bit like Reservoir Dogs in terms of what is alleged to happen!

At least the woman won't become pregnant. Some politician said that a women's body has some special way of avoiding pregnancy after rape.

 

[Iolo2]

At least the woman won't become pregnant. Some politician said that a women's body has some special way of avoiding pregnancy after rape.

It's the liberating effect of guns, doubtless!

 

[cashmcall]

Porn movies, doubtless. I am terribly respectable and avoid them. What is the wife doing while the lord and master is being tied up, and is the rapist holding the pop-gun in his mouth? It sounds a bit like Reservoir Dogs in terms of what is alleged to happen!

I have not watched a porn movie sense the night before I left for the Marines..

 

[cashmcall]

At least the woman won't become pregnant. Some politician said that a women's body has some special way of avoiding pregnancy after rape.

He was an IDIOT..

 

[Lagboltz]

He was an IDIOT..

Right. Sorry, I couldn't help myself. I shouldn't stir up dissension on a topic unrelated to this thread.

 

[Iolo2]

Right. Sorry, I couldn't help myself. I shouldn't stir up dissension on a topic unrelated to this thread.

'Dissention'?

 

[BigRob]

What a question. I was referring to slippery slope theories in general, especially when the NRA adheres to it so strongly. They are afraid to give an inch, because Dems will take a mile . They think first Dems will take away assault rifles, then everything else from our cold dead hands.

I am referring to the AK-47 et. al. These weapons are designed to efficiently kill as many people as possible in as short a time as possible. They have little use for anything else.

In regards to fully automatic weapons: (From the LA Times)

Purchasing one requires submitting fingerprints and photographs to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, going through an FBI criminal background check, and paying a $200 tax, among other requirements. Only automatic weapons manufactured and registered with the federal government before 1986 can be bought, owned and sold.

You refer to an Ak-47, but really all that is legal to go buy (without extensive background checks) is some version of that is semi-automatic...ie pull the tigger, one bullet comes out -- the same as any pistol you might buy. You seem to want to ban this type of weapon basically because it reminds you of a more lethal version that is not available....that does not make any sense.

 

[Lagboltz]

'Dissention'?

Webster's Definition of DISSENSION: disagreement; especially : partisan and contentious quarreling.
However your spelling is correct too.

 

[Iolo2]

Webster's Definition of DISSENSION: disagreement; especially : partisan and contentious quarreling.
However your spelling is correct too.

I just meant I could see no cause for dissention, and it is always pleasing if my dyslexia allows me to do correct spellings according to our own rules .

 

[dogtowner]

I would think you would get an A only if it were functional. You should have got at most a B+.

dad wouldnt spring for the plutonium