100+ dead in France

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
The core part of your argument is calling me bitch and saying something about sandwiches. Do not suddenly pretend to be debating honestly.

Even so, I will speak to the bolded. Everyone I know does. Look at you: bashing the dissenter. The weirdo. Calling me juvenile names despite the clear forum header. Your hands are sooo not clean.
I was mocking you and pointing out that you lost your argument so badly that your masculinity became in doubt. Your whole argument hangs on your opinion and rejection of an established branch of science. And so, you are a ridiculous human being.

As for xenophobia, No. That was one of abandon's sneakier lies. My assertion is that we have a strong and genetically-backed tendency to schematize. Food/danger. Fight/fuck/flee. Good guy/bad guy. That is not xenophobia, and I note that you uncritically accepted your "argument buddy's" assertion that what I said can be captured in a hate term. You are as dishonest as he, with the benefit of being more up front about it.
You say in the above quote -- untouched by me, you can go back and check if you like -- that you've never posed the idea that humans are genetically predisposed to xenophobia. Well, read another untouched quote of yours just a few pages back:
I otoh think that my thoughts on the matter are heavily predicated by my genetics. Yes, I do believe humans are essentially xenophobes of the tribal variety. That is one of the duties of a civilized individual: to know the animal he is, and to control the impulses that arise from that animal nature. (Like bashing the weirdo.) You don't need to be a scientist to acknowledge the impulse ... and the moderating counterimpulse provided by our upbringing in family and society.
I did not make the quote listed above up. This is your statement. You can fucking eat your words in that shit sandwich that I'll gladly make for you. Do you want mustard or mayo with that sandwich?

Dam you right wingers have poor memories or are bad liars or both. Anyway, here's your shit sandwich, I'll let you enjoy it alone.
 

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
That was mocking you and pointing out that you lost your argument so badly that your masculinity became in doubt. Your whole argument hangs on your opinion and rejection of an established branch of science. And so, you are a ridiculous human being.
Lol massive logic fail. Do you tase the guy in the mirror? Shady looking fuck.
You say in the above quote -- untouched by me, you can go back and check if you like -- that you've never posed the idea that humans are genetically predisposed to xenophobia. Well, read another untouched quote of you just a few pages back:
Quote missing. I wonder why. Amazing you remain committed to a losing argument.
I did not make the quote listed above up. This is your statement. You can fucking eat your words in that shit sandwich that I'll gladly make for you. Do you want mustard or mayo with that sandwich?

Dam you right wingers have poor memories or are bad liars or both. Anyway, here's your shit sandwich, I'll let you enjoy it alone.
 

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
Lol massive logic fail. Do you tase the guy in the mirror? Shady looking fuck. Quote missing. I wonder why. Amazing you remain committed to a losing argument.
Wow, you actually need to delete references to quotes in a reply. As if the reference isn't present just one posting above. Now, all I need to do is see if any other right wingers are so weak minded as to fall for your rather embarrassing attempt.

So you are admitting that you have no basis, psuedoscientific or otherwise to continue your strange argument about the civilizing nature of gun ownership. Your argument is a crock of shit. Sealed. Stamped. And put away.
 

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
Wow, you actually need to delete references to quotes in a reply. As if the reference isn't present just one posting above. Now, all I need to do is see if any other right wingers are so weak minded as to fall for your rather embarrassing attempt.

So you are admitting that you have no basis, psuedoscientific or otherwise to continue your strange argument about the civilizing nature of gun ownership. Your argument is a crock of shit. Sealed. Stamped. And put away.
Lol

You are cute but useless.
 

see4

Well-Known Member
I understand that some of the loaded rhetoric is loaded. It makes the topic hard to discuss. I do like that of all my dissenting fellow posters, you bring it back to the topic and don't descend into dissecting the messenger.
I do that because we go way back, to the days of panda. We have our disagreements, but your dialogue is respectful. So I play nice.

I am using "liberal" in an archaic sense: someone into civil liberties. That basic premise has ben distorted into what we now call libertarian. Modern liberals/conservatives are a less ideologically transparent lot.
Ahh, yes, that fits your premise more betterer.

So the question becomes, what constitutes sound and durable weapons legislation? I tend to be of the "remove the warning labels and let Darwin sort'em out" school , but I have a family and recognize the hypocrisy were I serious about that. So I gravitate to the two extremes: outright ban or outright "weapons free". Advocating an intermediate stance requires much higher levels of moral math ... and a careful definition of terms, the sort of things we pay attorneys much money to do for us. The subjective nature of the terms colors our discourse.
Indeed, that is why we pay attorneys and political representatives to figure all that "complicated" stuff out for us. And of course, here we are.

I am inclined toward zero gun prohibition combined with frequent and mandatory range performance reviews IF you wish to carry, open or concealed. That however puts me at the permissive end of the opinion spectrum. What would you propose as a starting point or platform?
Also referencing point 3, I ask why the need for polar extremes? What's wrong with providing your moral equation? Applied with the same methodologies as referred to by Annie, why not vote on a series of moral equations to determine the "grey area"?

I take the position that people (US citizens) should have the right to [panda] bear arms unless otherwise revoked, and should pass some level of competency and background check, as if that person were applying for a drivers license. It should not be easier to get a gun than it should to drive a car.

On the other hand, I do not take the position the Democratic party is currently stedfast closing ranks on, which is to remove all pleasure from gun ownership. After reading the [recent] bill many Democrats have signed on for, I want to vomit. On there respective faces. In 2016, banning all guns expect for girly 6 shooters is not the answer, not by a long shot. But I think we can all agree that something needs to be done to curb the current uptick in gun violence; starting with the police. Going off topic a moment, I don't agree with, but can certainly sympathize with the backlash of police killings that have taken place over the past few weeks. Something needs to be done.

I think that one thing we need to square (or decide we cannot) is about the intent of the 2nd Amendment. I read it as meaning parity with any forces the Government can mount ... keeps the folks in the capitals notionally honest. Stated another way: I believe that the fulcrum of the Second is to give the average citizen the power to say No to a government that the citizen opposes. If enough citizens form a similar resolve, it is a most democratic way to "water the roots of the tree" of revolution that Jefferson described. ... From your conclusion, I conclude you see a different basic intent. I ask you: what do you see that intent as being, and how does it shape what you see as a balanced implementation of permission v. regulation?

(Now we get into moral terrain. Not as convenient as the extreme arguments, but perhaps more useful in the complex reality we inhabit.)
You are right, I do see the intent differently. I see the 2nd Amendment written as a way of allowing non-military, non law enforcement people to form a militia when called upon, to fight for their country, for their government. Not against it.

Most assuredly the intent of the 2nd Amendment or any Bill of Rights for that matter were NOT written as a clause for people to revolt or stand up against government because they don't agree with a law or statute. That is what the democratic election process is for.
 

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
I do that because we go way back, to the days of panda. We have our disagreements, but your dialogue is respectful. So I play nice.


Ahh, yes, that fits your premise more betterer.


Indeed, that is why we pay attorneys and political representatives to figure all that "complicated" stuff out for us. And of course, here we are.


Also referencing point 3, I ask why the need for polar extremes?
It isn't a need but it is a low-energy point on the graph. I tend to be lazy. This is one place where lazy does not pay, but I felt the duty to disclose.
What's wrong with providing your moral equation? Applied with the same methodologies as referred to by Annie, why not vote on a series of moral equations to determine the "grey area"?
i don't have a moral equation. That goes hand in hand with the grudging realization that life is complex and messy.
I take the position that people (US citizens) should have the right to [panda] bear arms unless otherwise revoked, and should pass some level of competency and background check, as if that person were applying for a drivers license. It should not be easier to get a gun than it should to drive a car.

On the other hand, I do not take the position the Democratic party is currently stedfast closing ranks on, which is to remove all pleasure from gun ownership. After reading the [recent] bill many Democrats have signed on for, I want to vomit. On there respective faces. In 2016, banning all guns expect for girly 6 shooters is not the answer, not by a long shot. But I think we can all agree that something needs to be done to curb the current uptick in gun violence;
Can you provide me with numbers for that uptick? I don't have access to sources whose bias I know and can correct for
starting with the police. Going off topic a moment, I don't agree with, but can certainly sympathize with the backlash of police killings that have taken place over the past few weeks. Something needs to be done.
I don't know what. this is the wide open portion of this dialog for me.
You are right, I do see the intent differently. I see the 2nd Amendment written as a way of allowing non-military, non law enforcement people to form a militia when called upon, to fight for their country, for their government. Not against it.

Most assuredly the intent of the 2nd Amendment or any Bill of Rights for that matter were NOT written as a clause for people to revolt or stand up against government because they don't agree with a law or statute. That is what the democratic election process is for.
This is where you and I seem to intractably disagree. Allow me another way in for a moment: if not to oppose a rogue Government, what use would such an amendment have? Look at Britain, where guns were progressively legislated out with "use exemptions" for hunting and marksmanship. A Second Amendment would be neither apt nor necessary in such a climate or place.

If you read a bit about the history of the Second, I wonder how durable your "most assured" conclusion will remain. I believe that the right to oppose the Gov't is the heart of that amendment. There is no other reason for it that I can discern. It was written by people with immediate experience in throwing off an unwanted Government. I contend they wanted to secure that capacity for their descendants and safeguard it from nascent tyrants.

And that is why I believe Sotomayor is so keen on gutting it. She wants her security from uppity citizens.
 

testiclees

Well-Known Member
The core part of your argument is calling me bitch and saying something about sandwiches. Do not suddenly pretend to be debating honestly.

Even so, I will speak to the bolded. Everyone I know does. Look at you: bashing the dissenter. The weirdo. Calling me juvenile names despite the clear forum header. Your hands are sooo not clean.

As for xenophobia, No. That was one of abandon's sneakier lies. My assertion is that we have a strong and genetically-backed tendency to schematize. Food/danger. Fight/fuck/flee. Good guy/bad guy. That is not xenophobia, and I note that you uncritically accepted your "argument buddy's" assertion that what I said can be captured in a hate term. You are as dishonest as he, with the benefit of being more up front about it.


Jackass you take a 10000 word shit. Flush.

"You are cute but useless." Cringe worthy plus daf
 

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
I'm going to a trade school to get a certificate as a dental assistant, then I will be qualified to conduct research on human social behavior...
 

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
If you read a bit about the history of the Second, I wonder how durable your "most assured" conclusion will remain. I believe that the right to oppose the Gov't is the heart of that amendment. There is no other reason for it that I can discern. It was written by people with immediate experience in throwing off an unwanted Government. I contend they wanted to secure that capacity for their descendants and safeguard it from nascent tyrants.

The Whiskey Rebellion, also known as the Whiskey Insurrection, was a tax protest in the United States beginning in 1791, during thepresidency of George Washington. The so-called "whiskey tax" was the first tax imposed on a domestic product by the newly formed federal government. It became law in 1791, and was intended to generate revenue to help reduce the national debt.[3] Although the tax applied to all distilled spirits, whiskey was by far the most popular distilled beverage in the 18th-century U.S. Because of this, the excise became widely known as a "whiskey tax". The new excise was a part of U.S. treasury secretary Alexander Hamilton's program to pay war debt incurred during the American Revolutionary War.

The tax was resisted by farmers in the western frontier regions who were long accustomed to distilling their surplus grain and corn into whiskey. In these regions, whiskey was sufficiently popular that it often served as a medium of exchange. Many of the resisters were war veterans who believed that they were fighting for the principles of the American Revolution, in particular against taxation without local representation, while the U.S. federal government maintained the taxes were the legal expression of the taxation powers of Congress.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_Rebellion


The whiskey rebellion was put down pretty harshly. Those farmer's rifles were no match for the army, not then and not now.

Have there been any rulings that say outright what you claim is the reason for the 2nd? I'm not aware of any. If so, feel free to disabuse me of my opinion that the founding fathers had no intention of protecting the right of people to rebel. I think you are confusing opinion with fact again.
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
... if not to oppose a rogue Government, what use would such an amendment have?...I believe that the right to oppose the Gov't is the heart of that amendment. There is no other reason for it that I can discern. It was written by people with immediate experience in throwing off an unwanted Government. I contend they wanted to secure that capacity for their descendants and safeguard it from nascent tyrants.
  • enabling the people to organize a militia system.
  • participating in law enforcement;
  • deterring tyrannical government;
  • repelling invasion;
  • suppressing insurrection, allegedly including slave revolts;
  • facilitating a natural right of self-defense.

as you can see, deterring tyrannical government is only one of many reasons why the right to (polar) bear arms was written into the bill of rights.

and if you think your pea shooter is going to stand up to the full force and might of the united states armed forces, you might have a screw loose. times have changed.

but then again, you were getting likes from desert dude in the other thread when defending captain three-toothed militia of northern arkansas, so i'm gonna have to take that into account and worry for you more than anything else.
 

NLXSK1

Well-Known Member
The Whiskey Rebellion, also known as the Whiskey Insurrection, was a tax protest in the United States beginning in 1791, during thepresidency of George Washington. The so-called "whiskey tax" was the first tax imposed on a domestic product by the newly formed federal government. It became law in 1791, and was intended to generate revenue to help reduce the national debt.[3] Although the tax applied to all distilled spirits, whiskey was by far the most popular distilled beverage in the 18th-century U.S. Because of this, the excise became widely known as a "whiskey tax". The new excise was a part of U.S. treasury secretary Alexander Hamilton's program to pay war debt incurred during the American Revolutionary War.

The tax was resisted by farmers in the western frontier regions who were long accustomed to distilling their surplus grain and corn into whiskey. In these regions, whiskey was sufficiently popular that it often served as a medium of exchange. Many of the resisters were war veterans who believed that they were fighting for the principles of the American Revolution, in particular against taxation without local representation, while the U.S. federal government maintained the taxes were the legal expression of the taxation powers of Congress.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_Rebellion


The whiskey rebellion was put down pretty harshly. Those farmer's rifles were no match for the army, not then and not now.

Have there been any rulings that say outright what you claim is the reason for the 2nd? I'm not aware of any. If so, feel free to disabuse me of my opinion that the founding fathers had no intention of protecting the right of people to rebel. I think you are confusing opinion with fact again.
You are so wrong it is painful...
 

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
... if not to oppose a rogue Government, what use would such an amendment have?...I believe that the right to oppose the Gov't is the heart of that amendment. There is no other reason for it that I can discern. It was written by people with immediate experience in throwing off an unwanted Government. I contend they wanted to secure that capacity for their descendants and safeguard it from nascent tyrants.
  • enabling the people to organize a militia system.
  • participating in law enforcement;
  • deterring tyrannical government;
  • repelling invasion;
  • suppressing insurrection, allegedly including slave revolts;
  • facilitating a natural right of self-defense.

as you can see, deterring tyrannical government is only one of many reasons why the right to (polar) bear arms was written into the bill of rights.

and if you think your pea shooter is going to stand up to the full force and might of the united states armed forces, you might have a screw loose. times have changed.

but then again, you were getting likes from desert dude in the other thread when defending captain three-toothed militia of northern arkansas, so i'm gonna have to take that into account and worry for you more than anything else.
I don't control who sends me Likes.

I agree with each bullet (lol) point.

As for the peashooter, you have captured why I like the idea of weapons parity with the government.

ceterum censeo Admitting that humans instinctively schematize does not equal xenophobia. Your silence on my previous post to you worries me in a similar and opposite manner. If you see me engage in egregious excursions from reason, call me on those.
 

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
You are so wrong it is painful...
Care to tell me how I'm wrong about the Whiskey Rebellion and what happened to those rebels? George Washington saw no second amendment protection for them. And those farmer's rifles were no match for the army, not then and not now. You guys spout opinions as though they were facts. Where have there been any rulings explicitly stating the right to oppose tyranny is the reason for the 2nd amendment? How about some facts instead of opinion?

 

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
Care to tell me how I'm wrong about the Whiskey Rebellion and what happened to those rebels? George Washington saw no second amendment protection for them. And those farmer's rifles were no match for the army, not then and not now. You guys spout opinions as though they were facts. Where have there been any rulings explicitly stating the right to oppose tyranny is the reason for the 2nd amendment? How about some facts instead of opinion?

They did have weapons parity with the Gov't soldiers. What they did not have was tactical and logistic parity. More than the gun makes a soldier.
 

testiclees

Well-Known Member
ceterum censeo Admitting that humans instinctively schematize does not equal xenophobia. Your silence on my previous post to you worries me in a similar and opposite manner. call me on those.
"humans schematize" that's from your liberty univ associate's degree thesis right?

" If you see me engage in egregious excursions from reason" you went off the rails of "reason" the moment you began speaking like the Wiz from Oz.
 

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
"humans schematize" that's from your liberty univ associate's degree thesis right?

" If you see me engage in egregious excursions from reason" you went off the rails of "reason" the moment you began speaking like the Wiz from Oz.
I never got an associate's degree.

You are apparently not qualified to talk about reason. You are more the meme and insult warrior sort. And unlike the other no-reason-was-harmed-in -making-this-post fellow, you aren't even cute.
 
Top