Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Please read the forum rules before posting.



Check if you are posting in the correct category.



The Off Topic section is not meant for discussing Cookie Clicker.

Could Democrats please explain something to me?

MetronomeFanaticMetronomeFanatic Member Posts: 52 ✭✭
Why is that you want guns to heavily regulated or outright banned, in essence making everyone dependent on the state for protection, when many of you also think that the government is just one Donald Trump away from becoming Somalia or worse yet North Korea?

Comments

  • orobourosorobouros Member Posts: 22 ✭✭
    Not necessarily a Democrat, nor am I necessarily in favor of confiscatory gun control policy, all other things being equal. But I'll try to explain the fervor.

    Simply put, the contradiction you're seeing is not really there. Humans are wired to find patterns in everything; it's one of our most successful survival mechanisms overall. But individually it can lead us astray. Fear of tyranny does not necessarily imply a desire to take on the responsibility for physical defense against violence onto oneself.

    Fact: The modern, developed world has achieved what stability it has through one tactic more than any other: the absolute monopolization of violence as a tool of conflict resolution by the State. The extent to which this is achieved (it's never 100% achieved) determines how stable, safe, and profitable any society and economy are more than any other factor. If random citizens, NGO power structures like corporations, movements, dissidents, hate groups, whatever, are allowed to use violence to achieve their ends (assuming ends beyond "don't die"), anarchy rears its ugly head. Investment in markets collapses as uncertainty reigns, etc.

    The Right's so-called Gun Culture is rooted, supposedly, in fear of tyranny, but in reality it's rooted in plain old fear. Guns can be a safety blanket. But in the end, the only way we end up living in a world where you actually NEED guns, or at least military-grade weapons to live peacefully, is if the State fails to monopolize violence appropriately. Armed revolt against tyranny has little to do with it. The fear that makes some cling to being ludicrously well armed is the exact same fear that produces the mental instability that creates mass shootings. We all feel that the world is falling apart around us despite things getting ever better (except economically, which could reverse the trend, unfortunately), because that's what sells in media. If you really believe it's all about to go pear-shaped, I don't blame you for wanting a stocked rifle cabinet, but it's simply not true. Or it hasn't been until the Trump administration, anyway. Give them a few years and we'll see where we stand...

    By asserting that you want the right to more and bigger guns, and absolutely unfettered access to them, you are asserting that you are OK with random other private citizens using them to resolve grievances against you that do not involve self defense. Note that in none of this is there a requirement that all guns be banned, or private ownership unduly restricted. Just that control be maintained over that all-important state monopoly on violence as conflict resolution.

    Besides, all tyrannies that depend on martial power to maintain control ultimately fail spectacularly. You literally cannot force human beings to live at gunpoint indefinitely. It always goes off the rails. Which is why the right-wing GOP ideology becoming an outright propaganda of lies lately ("alternative facts" indeed...) is so worrying. Why do you think the Kim dynasty in North Korea bothers with that whole cult of personality thing? It's not ego; it's supplemental to their iron fisted military control, because they know that can't be 100% effective by itself.
  • MetronomeFanaticMetronomeFanatic Member Posts: 52 ✭✭
    orobouros said:

    By asserting that you want the right to more and bigger guns, and absolutely unfettered access to them, you are asserting that you are OK with random other private citizens using them to resolve grievances against you that do not involve self defense.

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but this claim appears to be built on "by asserting that everyone has a right to X, you assert that all possible base usages of X are acceptable". According to this, I think that since communication is a human right, then inciting an act of terrorism is also a human right as it's a possible base usage of X is correct. Note that I'm not in favor of all weapons being available for human use, just ones that aren't indiscriminate the way that nuclear bombs, toxic gases and engineered viruses are.
  • orobourosorobouros Member Posts: 22 ✭✭

    orobouros said:

    By asserting that you want the right to more and bigger guns, and absolutely unfettered access to them, you are asserting that you are OK with random other private citizens using them to resolve grievances against you that do not involve self defense.

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but this claim appears to be built on "by asserting that everyone has a right to X, you assert that all possible base usages of X are acceptable". According to this, I think that since communication is a human right, then inciting an act of terrorism is also a human right as it's a possible base usage of X is correct. Note that I'm not in favor of all weapons being available for human use, just ones that aren't indiscriminate the way that nuclear bombs, toxic gases and engineered viruses are.
    Ehhh, no. I've led you astray. I apologize.

    Look, have you ever learned how SNAP (AKA "Food Stamps") generally work? In that you can buy anything that's edible for nutritional value (no medicines, toothpaste, candy, that sort of thing), that hasn't been prepared to be ready-to-eat in a restaurant sort of way (no hot rotisserie chicken, etc.). Why so broad a definition when that still leaves so much shit that isn't good for people and shouldn't be subsidized, etc. (like soda)? Because it's nigh on impossible to come up with a "fair" definition of what is food and what is junk, so they have to leave it permissible to buy whatever's edible, basically.

    It's the same thing with the right to use violence. We can clearly (well, almost clearly) delineate what constitutes defense of your life or someone else's life that's in immediate jeopardy. Beyond that, it gets very hairy defining when violence should or can be allowed. You'll never find consensus, or even get within sight of it. Which is part of what's fuelling the whole debate.

    Like the example with food vs. junk food, it's possible to have a subjective understanding of one use of violence vs. another (beyond self-defense), but an objective, legislatable standard is almost impossible to develop. Which is why I equated a desire to have guns to use against "tyrannical authority" and your neighbor's desire to shoot you for looking at his wife a couple of seconds too long. A lot of those examples are going to seem pretty clear cut on the surface, but real life will create a lot more subtle ones than we can imagine.

    Guns are always going to have a place in society until and unless, like any invention, they're superceded by a technology that does what they do better, cheaper, and easier. And isn't THAT an unintentionally terrifying thought? But completely or barely restricted access to guns is too strongly linked to individuals desires, for good or ill, to take violence into their own hands beyond self-defense or what would be recognized by the state as self-defense (i.e., "They had it in for us. If we hadn't taken them out, we'd have been next. We just know it").

    Of course all of this makes it nearly impossible to actually come to any kind of compromise or consensus about what a sensible gun law actually looks like, but there you are.
  • Lava_EntityLava_Entity Member Posts: 2,366 ✭✭✭
    edited December 2017
    orobouros said:

    orobouros said:

    By asserting that you want the right to more and bigger guns, and absolutely unfettered access to them, you are asserting that you are OK with random other private citizens using them to resolve grievances against you that do not involve self defense.

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but this claim appears to be built on "by asserting that everyone has a right to X, you assert that all possible base usages of X are acceptable". According to this, I think that since communication is a human right, then inciting an act of terrorism is also a human right as it's a possible base usage of X is correct. Note that I'm not in favor of all weapons being available for human use, just ones that aren't indiscriminate the way that nuclear bombs, toxic gases and engineered viruses are.
    Ehhh, no. I've led you astray. I apologize.

    Look, have you ever learned how SNAP (AKA "Food Stamps") generally work? In that you can buy anything that's edible for nutritional value (no medicines, toothpaste, candy, that sort of thing), that hasn't been prepared to be ready-to-eat in a restaurant sort of way (no hot rotisserie chicken, etc.). Why so broad a definition when that still leaves so much shit that isn't good for people and shouldn't be subsidized, etc. (like soda)? Because it's nigh on impossible to come up with a "fair" definition of what is food and what is junk, so they have to leave it permissible to buy whatever's edible, basically.

    It's the same thing with the right to use violence. We can clearly (well, almost clearly) delineate what constitutes defense of your life or someone else's life that's in immediate jeopardy. Beyond that, it gets very hairy defining when violence should or can be allowed. You'll never find consensus, or even get within sight of it. Which is part of what's fuelling the whole debate.

    Like the example with food vs. junk food, it's possible to have a subjective understanding of one use of violence vs. another (beyond self-defense), but an objective, legislatable standard is almost impossible to develop. Which is why I equated a desire to have guns to use against "tyrannical authority" and your neighbor's desire to shoot you for looking at his wife a couple of seconds too long. A lot of those examples are going to seem pretty clear cut on the surface, but real life will create a lot more subtle ones than we can imagine.

    Guns are always going to have a place in society until and unless, like any invention, they're superceded by a technology that does what they do better, cheaper, and easier. And isn't THAT an unintentionally terrifying thought? But completely or barely restricted access to guns is too strongly linked to individuals desires, for good or ill, to take violence into their own hands beyond self-defense or what would be recognized by the state as self-defense (i.e., "They had it in for us. If we hadn't taken them out, we'd have been next. We just know it").

    Of course all of this makes it nearly impossible to actually come to any kind of compromise or consensus about what a sensible gun law actually looks like, but there you are.
    I have a point to make.

    If the Government were to pass a law that banned guns from the streets of the US, it would be against the 2nd amendment of the Constitution of the United States, stating that “One has the right to bear arms”.

    So basically, it is taking away a constitutional right.

    Which I don’t like.

    Point made.
    cease your tomfoolery

  • leunleun Member Posts: 101 ✭✭✭
    >democrats
    >logic
    pick one
  • MetronomeFanaticMetronomeFanatic Member Posts: 52 ✭✭
    edited December 2017



    I have a point to make.

    If the Government were to pass a law that banned guns from the streets of the US, it would be against the 2nd amendment of the Constitution of the United States, stating that “One has the right to bear arms”.

    So basically, it is taking away a constitutional right.

    Which I don’t like.

    Point made.

    I don't like this argument.

    1: It enshrines a document (which is bad).

    2: It's inherently statist (which is very bad).

    3: Command ethics undermine the concept of objective moral system (which is extremely bad).

    4: Amendments have already been overturned (granted, it was a much later amendment that was objectively disastrous and authoritarian).

    5: It has nothing to do with the actual problem.
    leun said:

    >democrats
    >logic
    pick one

    I know that it's ridiculous for liberals and socialists to support a heavily statist and profit-seeking party but is mockery really going to make them start thinking?
    Post edited by MetronomeFanatic on
  • leunleun Member Posts: 101 ✭✭✭



    I know that it's ridiculous for liberals and socialists to support a heavily statist and profit-seeking party but is mockery really going to make them start thinking?

    u really think im taking this seriously?

  • Lava_EntityLava_Entity Member Posts: 2,366 ✭✭✭
    I HATE POLITICS
    cease your tomfoolery

  • iceklausiceklaus Member Posts: 974 ✭✭✭
    I hate politicians (mostly)

    @Lava_Entity dis post old enuf?
    the ones who dare have lives woth dying for

    shhhhh... nothing to see here
  • Lava_EntityLava_Entity Member Posts: 2,366 ✭✭✭
    why

    *slams face into door*
    cease your tomfoolery

  • notleonnotleon Member Posts: 5
    yeah well i hate you
Sign In or Register to comment.