How To Argue For Gun Control.

Mac

Well lets us take as an example, since you brought it up, the Social Darwinists tell you that they wish to improve the human gene pool and exterminating all Jews will do that, do you accept that without question and think it has merit and is worthy of praise.

But the whole point of standard Social Darwinism is about letting people die who otherwise would not or work toward sterilising them. The Nazis solution and its targets was extreme even for most Social Darwinists.

But as I’ve said with Social Darwinism the method and the goal cannot be separated.

As I keep saying most of Social Darwinist thought was not about killing off ethnic groups, it was about letting people die of preventable want, this is why it is argued that a lot of right wing thought is coloured by Social Darwinist thinking and the reason why many on the right argue against such things as public welfare and universal healthcare coverage, while promoting tax cuts to the already well off (meaning the ‘inferior poor’ are more likely to die and the ‘superior rich’ to prosper even more).

*

In social Darwinism - You cannot praise the goal without also praising the method because the two are both part of the whole.

That doesn’t work on several levels, I mean why, in this case, do you condemn the method? I mean if John took over the fire truck because it wasn’t been used to help the people trapped by fire then yes I’d praise him for doing so.

But that was not a policy it wasn’t about an ideology.

The more Social Darwinist thinking in this scenario would be that it was better if the people died in the fire because they were not bright enough or healthy enough to escape the only reason they would see for putting out the fire would be the risk to property.

 

Mac

As I said the whole thing [about Social Darwinism] is crap.

Oh again with the shallow and simplistic thinking and again I could suggest some books to read – anyway there were many reason why people supported the Nazis and I’m not sure the Social Darwinist aspect was that big a thing and was hidden a lot under the whole nationalist side of things.

I mean you could ask why many on the right oppose universal healthcare and prefer not having it in favour of giving tax cuts to the already wealthy even though they know this will cause lots of poorer people to suffer and die unnecessarily?

And it has also been argued that Social Darwinist thinking is also the reason why some are opposed to gun control, because many who die in gun related incidences are criminals and/or poor and/or black, so while they may not be actively murdering the supposed ‘inferiors’ they are happy to do nothing and sit by passively and let ‘them’ kill each other.

 

Because you haven't addressed them thoroughly.

Example?

 

Political, religious, novels, and survivalist books to name a few.

 

I never said I would. What are you talking about?

I'm not following.

 

That isn't the reason why I disapprove of healthcare. I disapprove because it's a failed system.

He would've arrested for stealing a government vehicle. Also if he stole it right in front of a bunch firefighters it wouldn't have been needed for him to steal it. Another example is a cop commandeering a car to catch a badguy. He has no legal right to do so.

But that wasn't my point. You said you can't praise the outcome while condemning the method. I said you can and gave an example.

 

That I disproved your claim that nobody on the left supports such idea, that's what.

I'm saying that just because something is legal doesn't mean it's constitutional.

That's why I said "used to be."

Depends on what you mean by that. I say that the 1st and 2nd amendment covers the advancing technology of the future. The founding fathers weren't idiots. From their time back they've seen rocks evolve to pointy sticks to swords to inaccurate muskets to very accurate rifles. They even witness multi shot weapons. They had an idea on we're the technology was going. If they wanted to banned these items they would've written specifically about it.

Squirt guns aren't guns. And very few people actually died from machine gun fire.

I would disagree with the first part and the last part, they shouldn't.

 

I never stated otherwise for the latter. We should obey peacefully and work to change the law unless the government turns violent and tyrannical. As far as the former, not every law is constitutional. That's why we have court rulings.

First off you have to prove that the constitution is a living document. Secondly the founding fathers were aware of multi shot firearms of the time so even if your argument is true, it's irrelevant in this case.

They aren't considered guns either. A firearm must have a projectile propelled by gunpowder to be considered a firearm.

And even the potential doesn't justify it enough for restriction. Machine guns even in the military have limited roles where they shine. They are mostly used as suppressive fire for other troops to move up into position. Rarely are they effective as a kill streaker.

My stance is that those protected by the constitution have the right to own any weapon the average soldier without special security clearances has access to. As far as people with criminal records goes, if they are too dangerous to own a gun then they are too dangerous to walk the streets. Either keep them in jail or execute them or restore their 2nd amendment rights once they're free and off probation.

Actually it wasn't too long ago when children would bring their hunting rifles to school to go hunting afterwards. And we didn't hear of too many school shootings back then.

 

[SIZE=14pt]A few of the reasons people shot people in the US during March 2017[/SIZE]

My wife left me and started dating a man half my age, so I shot her and her new boyfriend dead. (TX, 3/2)


Some guy honked at me when I ran a stop sign, so I shot him in the face. (FL, 3/3)


I was too drunk to drive, so I got an Uber. In the back seat, I moved my legally-concealed handgun from one pocket to another and it went off. I shot my driver in the back but he was really nice about it. Five stars. (PA, 3/5)


My dad caught me doing some stuff on my computer so he took it away. I was really mad, so I shot him and I also shot his roommate’s girlfriend, because she happened to be there at the time. (OR, 3/8)


My wife moved out so I shot our two daughters dead and then shot my wife in the legs and told her I want her to live so she can suffer with the grief. I had permits for my guns. (IL, 3/10)


I asked my mom to go get me some doughnuts. She said no, so I shot her boyfriend in the face. I also shot one of the cops who responded. And I fired about 30 rounds randomly around my neighborhood. (FL, 3/15)

We were arguing and we both had guns so we both felt threatened so we both shot each other. (TN, 3/25)

 

Mac

Anyway that does not answer the question - why do you keep bringing up stuff we have already covered?

The problem with debating with a dishonest person is that they are so happy to lie.

Look I’m happy for people to read the thread and see you are lying and I know you are counting on them not reading it.

Thing is that lying so openly and blatantly only shows how weak your argument is.

My worry is that this seems to becoming the norm in US political debate, people that know their ideas don’t stand up to scrutiny and/or they seem unable to defend in any rational or reasonable way resort increasingly to lying to try and cover up that fact.

*

We have been through this many times why are you again repeating stuff that’s already been addressed why can’t you answer the criticisms levelled at this view or produce a rational counter argument

Oh for pete's sake man LOL we have been through this con game of yours many many many times – so here we go again – I ask you to point out where are these replies and you are then unable to produce them – or you evade in some other way [like asking me to repeat the criticisms AGAIN] but the outcome is always the same – no evidence of you addressing the criticisms in any rational way is ever forthcoming.

LOL and again with the evasion this is just a variation on ‘repeat the criticisms AGAIN’ – as I say I’m very happy for the thread to speak for itself

Oh and in the quote above it was for fuck sake not ‘for Pete’s sake’ I don’t know who Pete is but I certainly know who the fuck you are. Strange you are unhappy with swearing but are very happy to lie, to me the latter is far worse.

 

Mac

I mean the thing I’m pointing out is in your reply above ‘By trying to eliminate what they felt as inferior genes, they thought they can better the human race’

It’s the word eliminate – basically its all about killing off humans, either by letting deaths occur that could be easily prevented or by murdering. And the other method they would want was enforced sterilisation
and abortion.

If it was about curing or letting people live who otherwise would die that would NOT be Social Darwinism.

Well I’m not sure how I can put it simpler? (I’m never sure if you truly can’t follow stuff or are wilfully refusing to follow stuff).


OK - You can’t detach the method from the goal in Social Darwinism if you do then it wouldn’t seem to be Social Darwinism as it is known its more about helping people that are sick or lessening the chance of them dying which is the very opposite of Social Darwinism.

That doesn’t work on several levels, I mean why, in this case, do you condemn the method? I mean if John took over the fire truck because it wasn’t been used to help the people trapped by fire then yes I’d praise him for doing so.

But as said Social Darwinism isn’t an individual act it is an ideology.

But ok let’s go through what you say – So the fire truck was there but there were no firefighters and so John took charge of the fire truck and used it to save several people from a burning building and you can’t praise him for doing that but would want him arrested and prosecuted for theft to be in fact punished for trying to help.

I would seem that for you the more praiseworthy thing for John to have done is to have done nothing and just stood by and let the people burn.

I think most people would think your viewpoint on that doesn’t make sense.

*

But the example doesn’t seem to make sense and we are not talking about an individual action but an ideology and as I’ve explained if you take away the method from the goal in Social Darwinism then it wouldn’t seem to be Social Darwinism any more.

 

Mac

it is argued that a lot of right wing thought is coloured by Social Darwinist thinking and the reason why many on the right argue against such things as public welfare and universal healthcare coverage, while promoting tax cuts to the already well off (meaning the ‘inferior poor’ are more likely to die and the ‘superior rich’ to prosper even more).

It has also been argued that is also the reason why some are opposed to gun control, because many who die in gun related incidences are criminal and/or poor and/or black, and so while they are not actively murdering the supposed ‘inferiors’ they can sit by passively and let ‘them’ kill each other.

I though you disapproved of publicly backed healthcare (and welfare) because it was based on taxation and you don’t thing taxes should pay for the relief of suffering or death.

 

Mac

So at what point will you begin shooting police officers?

I mean you seem to be saying that one of the main reasons why you want to have guns is to protect the US from what you see as a bad government, but when do you act when do you know it's bad?

When do you begin using your gun against your political opponents?

 

Mac?

That isn't how this works. You need to be realistic. I'm all for restoring freedom post-incarceration, but allowing them to have guns when they just got out of jail is not a good thing. It's a bad thing. Their heads are full of cowboy/indian logic. It's a powder keg. Have you been incarcerated? I don't know what state you're in but I've been to county jail before and it sucks. Many of the people in there are complete losers, Mac. Really can't figure it out. Anyway I wish you'd reconsider on that particular statement.

 

When the government starts kicking down doors because people vioced an opinion not government approved, that's when the government becomes tyrannical.

So if a state passed a law declaring murder to be a right, it's constitutional?

Only to a certain extent.

It is relevant when you say the founding fathers would've banned such technology had they been aware of it.

I'm using the NFA definition. It's the reason why felons can own powerful air guns.

I know. And actually even before the ban, cases such as these were few and far between.

Yes and in fact they already do, though they are restricted. In fact flamethrowers are unrestricted in many states. You can literally walk in, pick one up, pay for it, and walk out.

Depends on what you define as a mental illness. If it is proven beyond reasonable doubt that you're a danger to yourself and others then you shouldn't be allowed to own a gun. Basically I apply the same reasoning on the mentally ill as with felons. If you're too mentally challenged to be trusted with a firearm then you should be under supervision of some kind.

Children of today are too irresponsible to be trusted with firearms on their own and I believe that's due to our culture. So no, I'm not in favor. Now if you asked me not 50 years ago then I would be in favor.

 

Again, for every incident you post of people using guns for bad, I can post five at least we're law abiding citizens used guns for good.