RE: The Best Historic Argument in Keeping Guns.

RE: The Best Historic Argument in Keeping Guns. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Kirata -> RE: The Best Historic Argument in Keeping Guns. (10/27/2015 8:00:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle The only thing abolished by my point is the fallacy, repeatedly advanced by the pro-gun lobby, that the 2nd Amendment offers an effective and successful means of preventing and/or overthrowing a tyrannical Govt. That argument is shown to be a complete dud, a total fallacy (some might add much like the 2nd Amendment itself). Firstly, the Second Amendment supports no such limitation on the purpose of the right to keep and bear arms, and neither do gun owners. Secondly, since the citizens of my country have not yet reached a point where they feel a need to employ arms against their government, claims alleging the ineffectiveness and lack of success thereof are premature. So your argument is (to pick a phrase at random) "a total fallacy" (some might add much like your premise). K.

Musicmystery -> RE: The Best Historic Argument in Keeping Guns. (10/28/2015 4:45:24 AM)
While not a fallacy, it's a pretty unrealistic scenario in the sense of succeeding, unless some other country is going to back the rebels and/or interfere on their behalf. Even then they'd have their work cut out for them (without the convenient fantasy of the military joining them). Put another way, if we ever had a military coup, it would be successful that same day (and involve a lot more strategy than shooting). Maybe those Islamic extremists some keep warning us about who just want to establish Sharia Law will use their 2nd Amendment rights to overthrow the infidels and their current government. Wouldn't that be a founding fathers kick in teeth.

Kirata -> RE: The Best Historic Argument in Keeping Guns. (10/28/2015 6:13:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery While not a fallacy, it's a pretty unrealistic scenario in the sense of succeeding... Ah well, I think that if there was an over-reach of Federal power sufficiently egregious to enrage a large enough majority of Americans that they would demand a change in government and make clear their intention to resist further impositions, the Federal government would be looking at a difficult situation. To start killing its own citizens in towns and cities all across the nation would only enrage more people, and quickly erode any remaining support among members of the armed forces. I think the government would collapse long before there would be any relevance to a debate about the effectiveness of irregular warfare against organized military. K.

BamaD -> RE: The Best Historic Argument in Keeping Guns. (10/28/2015 6:19:36 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery While not a fallacy, it's a pretty unrealistic scenario in the sense of succeeding... Ah well, I think that if there was an over-reach of Federal power sufficiently egregious to enrage a large enough majority of Americans that they would demand a change in government and make clear their intention to resist further impositions, the Federal government would be looking at a difficult situation. To start killing its own citizens in towns and cities all across the nation would only enrage more people, and quickly erode any remaining support among members of the armed forces. I think the government would collapse long before there would be any relevance to a debate about the effectiveness of irregular warfare against organized military. K. The leftest fantasy seems to be that one day the "far right" will make a formal declaration of war against the government over some trivial matter. They will then battle in open conventional warfare agaist the military who will, because the will be over a trivial matter, robotically gun down the right wing gun nuts.

PeonForHer -> RE: The Best Historic Argument in Keeping Guns. (10/28/2015 6:44:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery While not a fallacy, it's a pretty unrealistic scenario ... I think the more technically accurate term for which Tweakabelle was groping was not, in fact, 'fallacy', but 'a lot of stupid bollocks'.

tweakabelle -> RE: The Best Historic Argument in Keeping Guns. (10/28/2015 8:08:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery While not a fallacy, it's a pretty unrealistic scenario ... I think the more technically accurate term for which Tweakabelle was groping was not, in fact, 'fallacy', but 'a lot of stupid bollocks'. Whether you choose to call the failure of the 2nd Amendment argument as a bulkwark against tyranny a fallacy or a complete dud or 'a lot of stupid bollocks'. it does seem to me incontrovertible that if you claim (as Kirata does) that the US Govt is "already tyrannical", then it automatically follows that 2nd Amendment rights failed to prevent the tyranny or look remotely like enabling redressing the tyranny at the moment. I'm happy to settle for 'a lot of stupid bollocks' if you are. Though I hasten to add, when it comes to groping, there are many other things I prefer to grope for ........

lovmuffin -> RE: The Best Historic Argument in Keeping Guns. (10/28/2015 8:22:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery While not a fallacy, it's a pretty unrealistic scenario ... I think the more technically accurate term for which Tweakabelle was groping was not, in fact, 'fallacy', but 'a lot of stupid bollocks'. Whether you choose to call the failure of the 2nd Amendment argument as a bulkwark against tyranny a fallacy or a complete dud or 'a lot of stupid bollocks'. it does seem to me incontrovertible that if you claim (as Kirata does) that the US Govt is "already tyrannical", then it automatically follows that 2nd Amendment rights failed to prevent the tyranny or look remotely like enabling redressing the tyranny at the moment. I'm happy to settle for 'a lot of stupid bollocks' if you are. Though I hasten to add, when it comes to groping, there are many other things I prefer to grope for ........ And yet when Kirata addresses your post with a well written and logical response, rather than addressing what he said in that response you just repeat the same " stupid bullocks".

tweakabelle -> RE: The Best Historic Argument in Keeping Guns. (10/28/2015 8:40:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lovmuffin quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery While not a fallacy, it's a pretty unrealistic scenario ... I think the more technically accurate term for which Tweakabelle was groping was not, in fact, 'fallacy', but 'a lot of stupid bollocks'. Whether you choose to call the failure of the 2nd Amendment argument as a bulkwark against tyranny a fallacy or a complete dud or 'a lot of stupid bollocks'. it does seem to me incontrovertible that if you claim (as Kirata does) that the US Govt is "already tyrannical", then it automatically follows that 2nd Amendment rights failed to prevent the tyranny or look remotely like enabling redressing the tyranny at the moment. I'm happy to settle for 'a lot of stupid bollocks' if you are. Though I hasten to add, when it comes to groping, there are many other things I prefer to grope for ........ And yet when Kirata addresses your post with a well written and logical response, rather than addressing what he said in that response you just repeat the same " stupid bullocks". It seems to have escaped your notice that Kirata shifted the goalposts. In his riposte, he shifted from talking about a Govt that is "already tyrannical" to one that might be tyrannical at some vague point in the future - "I think that if there was an over-reach of Federal power sufficiently egregious to enrage a large enough majority of Americans that they would demand a change in government and make clear their intention to resist further impositions" The change from the current to the hypothetical means it's not as well written or as logical as you seem to think it is. Not at all. He's trying to wriggle out of the mess he created for himself by shifting the goalposts. Not a good look.

Kirata -> RE: The Best Historic Argument in Keeping Guns. (10/28/2015 8:41:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer I think the more technically accurate term for which Tweakabelle was groping was not, in fact, 'fallacy', but 'a lot of stupid bollocks'. Her argument was... If, as you claim, your government is "already tyrannical", then it automatically follows that your 2nd Amendment rights have not succeeded in preventing, or protecting citizens from, a tyrannical government. This is nonsense. Firstly, the argument depends on treating tyranny as something concrete, which either exists or does not exist, when in reality tyranny is a matter of degree ranging from petty annoyance to actionable excess. And secondly, the argument fails because its claim against prevention and protection presumes knowledge of the degree to which tyranny would exist the absence of the right. You guys do have high schools (or some equivalent) over there, right? K.

Lucylastic -> RE: The Best Historic Argument in Keeping Guns. (10/28/2015 8:49:05 AM)
well we can recognize bullshit and a load of old bollocks and changes of goalposts just fine.

Kirata -> RE: The Best Historic Argument in Keeping Guns. (10/28/2015 8:50:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic well we can recognize bullshit and a load of old bollocks and changes of goalposts just fine. It galls me to say this, but "Yes We Can!" [:D] K.

lovmuffin -> RE: The Best Historic Argument in Keeping Guns. (10/28/2015 8:51:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle quote: ORIGINAL: lovmuffin quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery While not a fallacy, it's a pretty unrealistic scenario ... I think the more technically accurate term for which Tweakabelle was groping was not, in fact, 'fallacy', but 'a lot of stupid bollocks'. Whether you choose to call the failure of the 2nd Amendment argument as a bulkwark against tyranny a fallacy or a complete dud or 'a lot of stupid bollocks'. it does seem to me incontrovertible that if you claim (as Kirata does) that the US Govt is "already tyrannical", then it automatically follows that 2nd Amendment rights failed to prevent the tyranny or look remotely like enabling redressing the tyranny at the moment. I'm happy to settle for 'a lot of stupid bollocks' if you are. Though I hasten to add, when it comes to groping, there are many other things I prefer to grope for ........ And yet when Kirata addresses your post with a well written and logical response, rather than addressing what he said in that response you just repeat the same " stupid bullocks". It seems to have escaped your notice that Kirata shifted the goalposts. In his riposte, he shifted from talking about a Govt that is "already tyrannical" to one that might be tyrannical at some vague point in the future - "I think that if there was an over-reach of Federal power sufficiently egregious to enrage a large enough majority of Americans that they would demand a change in government and make clear their intention to resist further impositions" The change from the current to the hypothetical means it's not as well written or as logical as you seem to think it is. Not at all. He's trying to wriggle out of the mess he created for himself by shifting the goalposts. Not a good look. So........try and wriggle out of your own mess by responding to post #: 249. Good luck with that.

tweakabelle -> RE: The Best Historic Argument in Keeping Guns. (10/28/2015 8:55:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer I think the more technically accurate term for which Tweakabelle was groping was not, in fact, 'fallacy', but 'a lot of stupid bollocks'. Her argument was... If, as you claim, your government is "already tyrannical" , then it automatically follows that your 2nd Amendment rights have not succeeded in preventing, or protecting citizens from, a tyrannical government. This is nonsense. Firstly, the argument depends on treating tyranny as something concrete, which either exists or does not exist, when in reality tyranny is a matter of degree ranging from petty annoyance to actionable excess. And secondly, the argument fails because its claim against prevention and protection presumes knowledge of the degree to which tyranny would exist the absence of the right. You guys do have high schools (or some equivalent) over there, right? K. Utter crap. I am simply taking your claim that the US Govt is "already tyrannical" at face value and examining the inevitable unavoidable consequences that must flow from that claim. In response, first you try to shift the goalposts, now you try to obscure the meaning of your own words. There's no escaping the consequences of your claim - once you claim that the US Govt is 'already tyrannical", the rest follows as sure as night follows day. Do you realise how desperate you sound as your slither about like a cut snake trying to find some way out of the mess you have put yourself in?

Kirata -> RE: The Best Historic Argument in Keeping Guns. (10/28/2015 9:03:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle It seems to have escaped your notice that Kirata shifted the goalposts. In his riposte, he shifted from talking about a Govt that is "already tyrannical" to one that might be tyrannical at some vague point in the future - "I think that if there was an over-reach of Federal power sufficiently egregious to enrage a large enough majority of Americans that they would demand a change in government and make clear their intention to resist further impositions" Yeah, no. You misrepresented my post by snipping five words out of context, and now you're lying about it. The government is already tyrannical, but for the most part not in ways that directly threaten me with imminent grievous bodily harm. K.

Kirata -> RE: The Best Historic Argument in Keeping Guns. (10/28/2015 10:01:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle Utter crap. I am simply taking your claim that the US Govt is "already tyrannical" at face value and examining the inevitable unavoidable consequences that must flow from that claim. In response, first you try to shift the goalposts, now you try to obscure the meaning of your own words. There's no escaping the consequences of your claim - once you claim that the US Govt is 'already tyrannical", the rest follows as sure as night follows day. Do you realise how desperate you sound as your slither about like a cut snake trying to find some way out of the mess you have put yourself in? I didn't move any goalposts, and I'm not the one doing the slithering here. My original post, before you did your snip job on it, was clear about tyranny being a matter of degree. K.

jlf1961 -> RE: The Best Historic Argument in Keeping Guns. (10/28/2015 10:11:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle It seems to have escaped your notice that Kirata shifted the goalposts. In his riposte, he shifted from talking about a Govt that is "already tyrannical" to one that might be tyrannical at some vague point in the future - "I think that if there was an over-reach of Federal power sufficiently egregious to enrage a large enough majority of Americans that they would demand a change in government and make clear their intention to resist further impositions" Yeah, no. You misrepresented my post by snipping five words out of context, and now you're lying about it. The government is already tyrannical, but for the most part not in ways that directly threaten me with imminent grievous bodily harm. K. A couple of points here: 1) If Tweak took an entire statement, in context, and responded to it, the universe would collapse into a singularity out of response to an impossible event occurring. Tweak has never responded to an entire statement in her history on these boards, preferring to take items out of context, be it three words or a sentence out of a paragraph. 2) Any government, by its very nature, after a certain point in population controlled, has to be tyrannical by its very nature. By the same token, that degree of tyranny must be kept at a delicate balance, too far in one direction, the people governed will revolt. 3) What many fail to realize, is that modern civil wars rarely happen without some support in the military. The idea that the entire military structure of the US or any country would blindly follow the orders of a government that would violate the constitution, or whatever a government is based on for that matter, is foolish. quote: I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." In the US oath of enlistment, those two phrases are the most important. First, no officer or enlisted man is required to follow orders that violate the constitution or the UCMJ. They have the right to refuse such orders, and of course face a court martial to defend their decision. The "I was just following orders" defense is not now or ever has been acceptable, it still leaves the soldier subject to punishment for criminal actions, even if they were ordered to do so by a superior. The fact that no US president has ever tried to find out just how far they could push some orders, with the exception of Lincoln, who suspended ha beaus corpus.

PeonForHer -> RE: The Best Historic Argument in Keeping Guns. (10/28/2015 11:07:33 AM)
quote: Her argument was... If, as you claim, your government is "already tyrannical", then it automatically follows that your 2nd Amendment rights have not succeeded in preventing, or protecting citizens from, a tyrannical government. This is nonsense. Firstly, the argument depends on treating tyranny as something concrete, which either exists or does not exist, when in reality tyranny is a matter of degree ranging from petty annoyance to actionable excess. And secondly, the argument fails because its claim against prevention and protection presumes knowledge of the degree to which tyranny would exist the absence of the right. You guys do have high schools (or some equivalent) over there, right? Yes, K, which is why we can see through those four lines of priceless verbiage. [:)]

PeonForHer -> RE: The Best Historic Argument in Keeping Guns. (10/28/2015 11:27:26 AM)
quote: By the same token, that degree of tyranny must be kept at a delicate balance, too far in one direction, the people governed will revolt. I'm struggling to work out what looks like in practice, JLF. From what I've seen, the State always tries to 'legitimise' its tyranny and has - in the UK and the USA, been very successful at it. There's been no 'delicate balance' about this - other than that of doing it largely (though not completely) without brute and obvious force. We see the results of this every day, in millions of ways. One of the latest is this example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sa6yp7dmVU4 The security officer needs no gun and were the students to be armed - well, do you think that would have made a difference? What's happened for those students to sit there, doing nothing, while one of their fellows is manhandled, is the result of introjected tyranny. That is, the students have learned to 'tyrannise themselves'.

Kirata -> RE: The Best Historic Argument in Keeping Guns. (10/28/2015 11:43:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer quote: Her argument was... If, as you claim, your government is "already tyrannical", then it automatically follows that your 2nd Amendment rights have not succeeded in preventing, or protecting citizens from, a tyrannical government. This is nonsense. Firstly, the argument depends on treating tyranny as something concrete, which either exists or does not exist, when in reality tyranny is a matter of degree ranging from petty annoyance to actionable excess. And secondly, the argument fails because its claim against prevention and protection presumes knowledge of the degree to which tyranny would exist the absence of the right. You guys do have high schools (or some equivalent) over there, right? Yes, K, which is why we can see through those four lines of priceless verbiage. Well then I invite you make your claim good. Lead us through it. K.

PeonForHer -> RE: The Best Historic Argument in Keeping Guns. (10/28/2015 12:03:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer quote: Her argument was... If, as you claim, your government is "already tyrannical", then it automatically follows that your 2nd Amendment rights have not succeeded in preventing, or protecting citizens from, a tyrannical government. This is nonsense. Firstly, the argument depends on treating tyranny as something concrete, which either exists or does not exist, when in reality tyranny is a matter of degree ranging from petty annoyance to actionable excess. And secondly, the argument fails because its claim against prevention and protection presumes knowledge of the degree to which tyranny would exist the absence of the right. You guys do have high schools (or some equivalent) over there, right? Yes, K, which is why we can see through those four lines of priceless verbiage. Well then I invite you make your claim good. Lead us through it. K. Okey dokey. You said: "This is nonsense. Firstly, the argument depends on treating tyranny as something concrete, which either exists or does not exist, when in reality tyranny is a matter of degree ranging from petty annoyance to actionable excess. And secondly, the argument fails because its claim against prevention and protection presumes knowledge of the degree to which tyranny would exist the absence of the right." Re the first sentence: The idea of 'degrees of tyranny' sounds plausible, but doesn't bear interrogation in practice. In reality people will put up with huge amounts of tyranny for various reasons. Tyranny is built up over the years as children grow - they're conditioned and socialised to accept it. Once people become adults, they've learned to put up with a zillion petty annoyances, which they now accept as 'part of their lives'. I posted an example of one of the results above: it's in post 258, which you're welcome to answer if you'd like. As for your second sentence: No, I admit that doesn't make sense to me. The grammar of it throws me, somehow. Could you rephrase it?

Page: << < prev 11 12 [13] 14 15 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

6.201172E-02