Thoughts and Prayers - Again...

[TheDrake]

So you think if a SWAT team shows up at my house they are fully within their legal rights to kill me. Cool, cool, cool. Do they also get to sexually assault my daughter? I mean, they have the guns in your dream world, they can do anything they want, right?

You think you're going to ward off a rouge SWAT team, a precision unit specifically built to kill well armed criminals? The best defense against a bad cop with a gun is a good cop with a gun. Unfortunately cops seem to have a hard time holding each other accountable, and they wind up firing the cops that dare to interfere with another cop using inappropriate violence against a suspect. The more "well-armed" the general population is, the more deadly encounters will transpire. Are you not going to surrender your weapon when the cops pull you over? I mean, if you disarm yourself, who will stop them from raping your daughter?

[rightleft22]

I think if we're going to be fair to Crunch as he attempts to argue on behalf of his position, we shouldn't impute motives to him or labels like "entitled prick." We've seen little in this thread to suggest that he believes that no social contract, explicit or implicit, accrues to him. I certainly understand and sympathize with the observation that governments are capable of tyranny and extreme violence, even directed at their own citizens, and that citizens might well desire to have the ability to deter that violence through the threat of their own.

I was lumping everyone into the group of entitled pricks including myself

[Crunch]

...
 And we'll see the death totals in mass shootings continue to go up when people are allowed to drive around with 50 cals and no one can stop them until they start shooting into a crowd.

Yeah, sure. We've all heard that before. Conceal carry, open carry, constitutional carry - it's gonna be a bloodbath. This is an appeal to emotion and can be safely ignored by rational people.

If a 50 cal was as accessible as an AR-15 you don't think we would see increased bloodshed? Sure 99.999% of people aren't going to use it to shoot up a crowd. But 1 person using it in a crowded venue would be devastating.

The 50 cal is not the issue. The nutjob using it is. The gun itself is an inanimate object, incapable of hurting others unless someone fires it. The nutter that would use a 50 cal to kill others is not going to just say, "welp. no 50 cal, guess I cant whack a dozen people". He'll get another gun, he'll use a bomb, whatever. We don't need gun control, we need mental health reform.

You said you would be as effective with a glock as an AR-15. How about something bigger (50 cal) against a crowd packed together for a concert or exiting a stadium?

I was specifically referring to a crowded room. In that environment, a Glock would be at least as effective as an AR-15. Outdoors may change that. Certainly, a fully automatic 50 cal would be devastating if a nutjob used it on a crowd. We should make sure nutjobs get the necessary mental healthcare or medication they need so they don't act this way.

How long does it take the police to get close enough to stop someone wielding something that high caliber?

Depends. I have a Barrett M82, I can get close enough pretty quickly (about 2000 yards effective range). But why wait for the police? As we saw in Uvalde, that is a bad idea. An intended victim, right there next to the nutjob attacking is already close enough. If they were armed, they could put rounds on the attacker and eliminate him or at least disrupt things.

Is your conceal carry pistol going to do you any good against someone shooting you at 100+ yards? Do you see any limits on a right to bear arms so we can have a safer society?

At 100 yards, no. LOL, I"m pretty good with it but 100 yards is very difficult with a handgun. That's precisely why I need a AR-15.

Why would limits on the right to bear arms make society safer? Seriously, unpack that a bit. Did it work in Chicago? California?  Check this out:

The Top Five Mass Shootings:

1. The Peshawar School (Pakistan): 150
2. Garissa College (Kenya): 148
3. Paris Attacks: 130
4. Utoya Massacre (Norway): 69
5. Westgate Mall (Kenya): 67

Kenya, France, & Norway have very strict gun ownership laws. In Europe, it’s very difficult to own one. Why aren't they safe? Not to mention that some of the worst mass murders in the US did not involve a gun.

NYC, 9/11/01, 2,763, Airliner
Pentagon, 9/11/01, 189, Airliner
OKC, 1995, 189, Bomb
Bath Township, MI, 1927, 44, Bomb

Neither the gun nor the restrictions on them protected them and made them safe.

The problem is, that you believe misinformation. The idea that the US has the most mass shootings is a myth created by University of Alabama associate professor Adam Lankford.

Lankford claimed that since 1966, there were 90 mass public shooters in the United States, more than any other country,” says Lott. “Lankford claimed ‘complete data’ were available from 171 countries.

OK, since 1966, 171 countries, complete data. No. Impossible to have that many countries from that many years be complete. When asked, Lankford refuses to provide any of the data or the methodology that generates his conclusion. You just gotta trust him ... right. No, he won't do it because he's lying.

It turns out that not only did the U.S. not have the most frequent mass shootings, it was No. 62 on the list, lower than places like Norway, Finland, and Switzerland.

There was also no relationship between the rate of gun ownership in different countries and the rate of mass shootings.

The US ranks 62nd on the list in mass shootings and does not break even the top 5 for most deadly ones. It's in places where severe restrictions on gun ownership occur that you are less safe.

[Crunch]

Apparently, cops also do very little to reactively deal with crime. Despite what  you see on copaganda shows, they're pretty awful at actually solving crimes.

A strong police presence deters crime. The more cops visible on the street, the less crime (except in California where they don't care about crime). They're OK at solving crimes after they happen. Stopping a crime in progress, well, when seconds count the police are minutes away.

Recent history shows the best weapons to use against a modern military are IEDs, MANPADS, and anti-tank missiles. Should civilians be able to own these?

Civilians can already create their own IEDs. People should be able to own any weapon they can afford. The per unit cost of a stinger, about $120,000. I don't think a lot of people are going to be loading up on those MANPADS or ntitank missiles. They're way too costly to buy and maintain for personal use.

[Tom]

We don't need gun control, we need mental health reform.

Is it your belief that someone who would shoot a SWAT team is necessarily mentally ill?

[NobleHunter]

Should bombs be more regulated or less regulated than guns?

[Tom]

Also, regarding the frequency of mass shootings in the U.S.:
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/mass-shootings-by-country

Note the dissection of the statistical claims that Crunch is citing here, in particular the observation that averaging per-capita deaths as a result of mass shootings strongly disadvantages countries with small populations that experience very rare but high-death incidents (as happened with Norway).

[Crunch]

Should bombs be more regulated or less regulated than guns?

What kind of bombs? What delivery method? What yield? You could be talking about anything from a firecracker to a nuclear bomb. Rocket system? Dropped off a plane? Mobile launch truck?

[Tom]

We all agree that's an irrelevant digression, right?

[NobleHunter]

We all agree that's an irrelevant digression, right?

Well, no.

What kind of bombs? What delivery method? What yield? You could be talking about anything from a firecracker to a nuclear bomb. Rocket system? Dropped off a plane? Mobile launch truck?

You're the one saying civilians should be able to own them. Why don't you propose a suitable level of regulation.

[Fenring]

Maybe I've lost the plot, but are we now discussing why civilizans should have no restrictions of any kind on owning all existing weapons systems?

Like NH, I'm not sure this is an irrelevant digression. It's irrelevant in the side discussion on the source of rights, but it seems like an entirely different rabbit hole to explore the concept of a maximally armed civilian populace. Would this somehow imply that there should be two separate armies - the Federal army, and the anti-government citizen's army, each armed with everything ranging from assault rifles to stealth bombers and nukes?

[Tom]

We are discussing that, because Crunch has made it clear that this is his opinion. However, by taking the bait (which was posted entirely as distracting chaff, I'm sure; I do not believe that Crunch is waiting patiently to discuss what he considers differences in degree between the types of bombs he named) and discussing what specific sorts of bombs a citizen should be allowed to own, we're allowing ourselves to go down that (ultimately irrelevant) rabbit-hole. He has already clearly stated that he believes the primary limit on citizen ownership of any sort of weapon should be their ability to procure such a weapon, either by having the funds to purchase one or the know-how to make it. I suppose we could clarify whether this applies to so-called "WMDs" as well, but that's ultimately just a matter of degree; once you posit that a citizen should have the ability to commit mass violence in the name of their own safety, you've already hit the important philosophical waypoint.

Bear in mind, if you want to point out the problems with this position, that Crunch does not always argue honestly. He will not necessarily admit to logical inconsistencies in his positions; neither will he necessarily be chastened by them.

I'd also like to note that this position can derive logically from Alito and Scalia's perversion of "originalism" in Heller. If you believe that the point of the Second Amendment is to guarantee the individual citizens of a state access to weapons even over the express wish of that state, and that the rationale behind such guaranteed access is not only to empower a citizen to defend himself and his property effectively from other citizens but from agents of both the state and federal government, then access to military-grade weaponry is indeed something that's implied. It's one of the obvious issues with incorporating the Second Amendment against the states; you have to ignore that those pro-2A Founders who spoke of citizen militias being able to resist other militaries were specifically expecting states to resist each other and the federal government, and not private militias being empowered to resist all governments. (We can see this within their own lifetimes during the multiple slave rebellions and veteran-led juntas of the late 1700s.)

[Fenring]

Bear in mind, if you want to point out the problems with this position, that Crunch does not always argue honestly. He will not necessarily admit to logical inconsistencies in his positions, but neither will he be chastened by them.

I'm personally not gonna touch that position with a 10 foot pole. I'd discuss the concept of what it means to say a person has the right to self-defense, but see no future arguing what we just outlined.

[Mynnion]

Maybe I'm missing something but it seems to me that defining the limits of acceptability is critical to this discussion.  A free for all would appear to allow those with significant wealth to own any weapon systems they want and to basically build their own armies.  This could be construed to include corporations.  How many nukes can Musk (or Soros or Gates) afford to protect himself against a government he feels is stealing his tax dollars?

[Wayward Son]

And how can you feel safe knowing that their next-door neighbor has a 10-kiloton atomic bomb, and you don't??

My god, how could you possibly defend yourself?

[yossarian22c]

Maybe I'm missing something but it seems to me that defining the limits of acceptability is critical to this discussion.  A free for all would appear to allow those with significant wealth to own any weapon systems they want and to basically build their own armies.  This could be construed to include corporations.  How many nukes can Musk (or Soros or Gates) afford to protect himself against a government he feels is stealing his tax dollars?

Business competitors beware. Compete with me and I'll bomb your headquarters. What could go wrong? Just remember its not the bombs that are the problem its the ruthless capitalists using them to gain monopolies. The only solution is a corporate arms race leading to MAD. "We all know" allowing the government to regulate arms is the same thing as letting the government and all their agents have their way with your wife and daughter.

[Fenring]

I've seen arguments that, for instance, Jefferson believed that legit revolution was periodically necessary in order to cut out corruption in the political system. Something, something, blood in the streets. Whether this was citizens against their own state, the states against the feds, or some states against other states, is a detail not pertinent to the general sentiment that perhaps some founders foresaw the necessity of actual civil war being a regular part of life going forward. Putting aside whether there is any practical method of rooting out deep-rooted corruption other than through direct violence, one thing we can sure of is the founders never could have possibly imagined the horrors of war first seen in the 20th century; where post-WWI for the first time in world history even the mighty empires began to feel that more war was unthinkable. I personally can't take seriously any argument about necessary regular warfare without it including a discussion of the destructive potential we have now compared to 200 years ago. And this, in turn, can't be divorced from the thinly held-together world supply chain. War doesn't just mean the people in the conflict die, and it doesn't just mean the people in the surrounding areas starve. It could also mean that people around the world starve. How would you like a U.S. civil war to entail hundreds of millions dead worldwide due to a complete breakdown of the supply chains? But this is all sort of beside the point, isn't it?

[TheDrake]

One of the big reasons for the second amendment, is that the founders felt that a standing army was too dangerous for the nation to have. Recognizing that they needed to be able to defend themselves against hostile nations, their answer to this was a militia. Of the kind that kicked things off in Lexington. This was, in fact, "the state" in the sense that it was organized by the town leaders at the behest of the Massachusetts colonial government. They sought to weaken the state by taking away its most potent tool for oppression. I have my doubts that they would have thought that the militia would act against the interests of the state, although they might have thought they would act according to their state rather than the federal government.

[Wayward Son]

Business competitors beware. Compete with me and I'll bomb your headquarters. What could go wrong? Just remember its not the bombs that are the problem its the ruthless capitalists using them to gain monopolies. The only solution is a corporate arms race leading to MAD. "We all know" allowing the government to regulate arms is the same thing as letting the government and all their agents have their way with your wife and daughter.

And that really is the principle of this, isn't it?  Even Crunch will admit there are some weapons which individuals or private groups should not have.  Heck, there are many which we don't even want certain governments to have, and try our hardest to prevent them from getting!

So, really, we are not arguing whether there should be some weapons control or not, but where that line should be.

And whether a weapon that can blow the head completely off of a 10-year-old can be legally purchased on any given day by any 18-year-old with a chip on his shoulder and murder on his mind.

[yossarian22c]

... But this is all sort of beside the point, isn't it?

Yep. We have to allow all weapons so one day Rambo Crunch can take out mass shooters and defend his home against SWAT teams coming to take his daughter  . I mean that logic is iron clad. No argument can sway it. His rights to the biggest and most destructive weapons lie deeper than the second amendment. They come from the very nature of reality. There is no refutation.

[rightleft22]

I was watching a compellation of political adds featuring weapons. Those in and running for office shooting militarily grade weapons implying consciously or unconsciously that such weapons are merely tools needed to get the job done and that they will do what ever is necessary....

Bombarded by these messages of gun culture how is it we wonder how some trouble youth picks up a weapon to make thier point or solve thier problem.
Maybe its Gun Culture that need to be address as well as responsible Gun laws

Personally having a conviction for Gun responsibility it think such adds ought to disqualify the politician from consideration. 
Their dumb and they assume those watching them are dumb

[Fenring]

By the way I am certainly open to - or even enthusiastic about - arguments regarding better methods of assigning martial power in a country. I can absolutely see the objection to a large standing army, controlled by a smallish group that in turn is responsive mostly to big money interests and an also smallish power elite, which in turn ends up functioning as a police force to ensure cash flows and to guard the wealth of the rich. This is not all that is going on, but it does go on. So if the fundamental argument really was against a national standing army, or about a different type of mechanism for the governance of this army, or about establishing much more stringent checks on corruption and lack of accountability, or even at a local level about redefining the role of the police, I would find any of these topics interesting. What is not really interesting is the notion of just letting civilians have nukes and hoping this does something productive. It's not even a question of the validity of the idea, but just that it's not really an idea. Now if there was an organized system wherein the public could be given the power to actually pull the plug on Federal power at a moment's notice - no doubt requiring a technological innovation to make it happen - then that would be a cool scifi topic. But everyone armed to the teeth is one of those dystopian films that were pretty big in the 80's and which don't get much replay value.

[Tom]

I normally wouldn't make this observation at this point in the conversation, but I think it's apropos: we have seen what happens when citizens have the ability to effectively threaten their elected officials, both in this country and in others, even without fully engaging a nation in war. It does not generally appear to result in good governance, but it does give the edge to extremist, militant movements that would otherwise be held in check. Murder and arson committed with impunity against Black legislators and landowners in the South during Reconstruction was absolutely instrumental in terrorizing southern governments into reverting initial reforms. Many of the worst excesses of the modern political period are a direct consequence of armed Confederates (and sympathizers) who had the firepower to intimidate local police and politicians into looking the other way. I can think of very few scenarios in the modern era where a typical citizen might say, "thank goodness for those heavily-armed individuals, without whose threats the government would never have seen sense."

[NobleHunter]

The point of the bomb question is to point out that some of the "arms" required to defeat a tyrannical government are subject to regulation. Once some regulations are established it becomes difficult to refuse any regulation which seems to be the current interpretation of the 2nd amendment.

Also, it proves the idea that 2nd amendment prohibits all regulation is absurd. It should be untenable to suggest that any yahoo should be able to buy enough explosives to level a building. Which would be why there are rules for the purchasing and sale of explosives.

[Tom]

There is a concept in rhetorical argument often called "biting the bullet," which means accepting the potentially problematic consequences of a position. Someone willing to claim that citizens should be able to own whatever weapons they want in order to have a chance of threatening the government might accept that this means that dangerously unstable people might be able to obtain and use destructive weapons, but simply accept that this is one potential cost of being able to combat tyranny. (Recent polling shows, for example, that 44% of responding Republicans agreed that mass shootings are, as worded in the poll, "unfortunately something we have to accept as a free society.") They might also try to dodge the bullet, by arguing that typical citizens will prove unable to acquire their own massively destructive weapons (and that private/corporate militias capable of doing so will be subject to consumer reaction); or asserting that such an ever-escalating weapons race will necessarily create détente through game theory: "mutually assured destruction" on a small scale, or the idea popular with some conservatives that an armed citizenry is as a direct result of the threat of death also a polite citizenry. It's also possible, although pretty difficult in this case, to assert that there is no bullet at all, and that citizens simply will not buy and use powerful weaponry if given the opportunity.

[Fenring]

game theory

Man, don't even go there

Game theory, or an argument of an analogous sort, is entirely at the core of the types of arguments about "what would happen if". It's a thought experiment meant to employ logic to define a most logical outcome of a scenario. So "what would happen if anyone could have any weapon" is a scenario that could be armchair quarterbacked for the next century, but fundamentally it would have the same problem game theory has: there's nothing behind it. I've read multiple 'textbooks' on game theory at this point, sincerely hoping to be shown how exciting a field it is. I don't even like "A Beautiful Mind" but I'm a fan of formal logic so I figured it would be equally interesting. However I have to submit at this point in time that I'm more or less convinced it's complete nonsense. It is quite similar in its fundamental assumptions to many economic analyses, in which theoretical logic is meant to predict what human beings will do in an undefined future condition. As some of you who study economics or the markets may note, no one can predict what people will do in almost any situation, nor can we predict which situations will in fact occur or what the side effects of these situations will be. Assigning an "optimal outcome" analysis to even the most simplistic situation (the prisoner's dilemma) will likely bear little relation to what actually happens and what the people involved are actually thinking.

It's also possible, although pretty difficult in this case, to assert that there is no bullet at all, and that citizens simply will not buy and use powerful weaponry if given the opportunity.

Difficult indeed, since Crunch's overt position is that the purpose of the law in question is to employ powerful weaponry against tyranny.

[yossarian22c]

game theory

Man, don't even go there

Game theory, or an argument of an analogous sort, is entirely at the core of the types of arguments about "what would happen if". It's a thought experiment meant to employ logic to define a most logical outcome of a scenario. So "what would happen if anyone could have any weapon" is a scenario that could be armchair quarterbacked for the next century, but fundamentally it would have the same problem game theory has: there's nothing behind it. I've read multiple 'textbooks' on game theory at this point, sincerely hoping to be shown how exciting a field it is. I don't even like "A Beautiful Mind" but I'm a fan of formal logic so I figured it would be equally interesting. However I have to submit at this point in time that I'm more or less convinced it's complete nonsense. It is quite similar in its fundamental assumptions to many economic analyses, in which theoretical logic is meant to predict what human beings will do in an undefined future condition. As some of you who study economics or the markets may note, no one can predict what people will do in almost any situation, nor can we predict which situations will in fact occur or what the side effects of these situations will be. Assigning an "optimal outcome" analysis to even the most simplistic situation (the prisoner's dilemma) will likely bear little relation to what actually happens and what the people involved are actually thinking.
...

Game theory works best applied to games. I think the most interesting and applicable game theory work is in poker. The simplifying assumptions for anything more complex than a game with fixed rules and limited choices usually make the resulting models dubious at best. But game theory optimized computers can beat the best poker players in the world over the long term.

Ultimately, game theory has the coolest mathematical name with some of the weakest results. Minimax/Maximin ideas are interesting but the nearly perfect knowledge needed about the underlying probabilities and payoffs rarely exist in the real world. Poker is probably the most complex topic that people have made significant progress on. Because there is real money to be won by the best players learning to be better. In poker the probabilities and payoffs can be calculated exactly. There are deviations to the strategy if your opponent is playing too loose or too tight. But there are real results in that narrow little branch of game theory that are applicable to poker players.

[TheDrake]

The private army thing has been roundly explored in many good sci-fi books as well.

Heinlein, I will fear no evil:

My hotel was only five minutes from the medical center." "I must now admit to having taken another liberty, Doctor. Your luggage was packed, your hotel bill has been paid, and all your things were moved to my guest room." "My word. Why?" "Better security." "That hotel seemed secure to me. Armed guards on every door, more armed men operating the lifts-I could not get in or out without showing my I.D. at least thrice. Reminded me of the army. Hadn't realized what an armed camp the States are. Isn't it rather a nuisance?" "Yes. But one grows used to it. Your hotel is safe enough, physically. But the press are onto us now and they can get inside. And so can the police." Boyle looked troubled but not panicky.

The number of licensed private police in the United States reached triple the number of 'public peace officers. Miss Joan née Johann Smith received over two thousand proposals of marriage, more than that number of less formal proposals, one hundred eighty-seven death threats, an undisclosed number of extortion notes, and four bombs-not any of which she received in person as they were diverted to Mercury Private Courier Service under procedures set up years earlier.

Must have been ten years since I last read this one, if not more, but it seemed to have mostly aged well. Total reliance on private security forces for offense and defense are a staple of the story. It doesn't hurt that it indicates the kind of power that a billionaire type could wield in such a dystopian world. They essentially become above the law, because they have sufficient firepower to be largely immune to the state's efforts to curtail them.

[Fenring]

Game theory works best applied to games. I think the most interesting and applicable game theory work is in poker. The simplifying assumptions for anything more complex than a game with fixed rules and limited choices usually make the resulting models dubious at best. But game theory optimized computers can beat the best poker players in the world over the long term.

Yes, the textbooks always make their strongest case when inspecting limited scenarios with few fixed options and discreet outcomes. By the halfway point in the books they always pivot to real world application and try to show military/tactical uses, and so forth, and every time I can easily find many variables they are not accounting for. At best it becomes a probability study, and even then the probabilities are essentially arbitrary. Once the choices and the outcomes are analog (i.e. non-discreet) it quickly becomes chaos. That's mostly why I have much more respect for complex systems analysis than for game theory.

[rightleft22]

I think it can be argued that at no time in history have so many people around the world had it as good as we have it today especially in the west. Yet instead of being grateful I hear growing talk about how we must protect ourselves from our government by force. That when some group doesn't' get things their way that tyranny and to right that wrong armed resistance where if successfully the group gets to enforce thier 'freedom' on everyone else.  Its like we haven't learned anything from the past.

Maybe we have it too good? We certainly don't deserve our good fortune of being born in this time and country, but oh we are entitled.... and so afraid. 

'Rights', 'Freedom' with no thought about how those ideals function within a social contact of democracy.
 

[Lloyd Perna]

The private army thing has been roundly explored in many good sci-fi books as well.

Heinlein, I will fear no evil:

My hotel was only five minutes from the medical center." "I must now admit to having taken another liberty, Doctor. Your luggage was packed, your hotel bill has been paid, and all your things were moved to my guest room." "My word. Why?" "Better security." "That hotel seemed secure to me. Armed guards on every door, more armed men operating the lifts-I could not get in or out without showing my I.D. at least thrice. Reminded me of the army. Hadn't realized what an armed camp the States are. Isn't it rather a nuisance?" "Yes. But one grows used to it. Your hotel is safe enough, physically. But the press are onto us now and they can get inside. And so can the police." Boyle looked troubled but not panicky.

The number of licensed private police in the United States reached triple the number of 'public peace officers. Miss Joan née Johann Smith received over two thousand proposals of marriage, more than that number of less formal proposals, one hundred eighty-seven death threats, an undisclosed number of extortion notes, and four bombs-not any of which she received in person as they were diverted to Mercury Private Courier Service under procedures set up years earlier.

Must have been ten years since I last read this one, if not more, but it seemed to have mostly aged well. Total reliance on private security forces for offense and defense are a staple of the story. It doesn't hurt that it indicates the kind of power that a billionaire type could wield in such a dystopian world. They essentially become above the law, because they have sufficient firepower to be largely immune to the state's efforts to curtail them.

Fiction doesn't indicate anything.  It's merely what one person imagines the kind of power a billionaire could wield in such world.

[Crunch]

We all agree that's an irrelevant digression, right?

Well, no.

What kind of bombs? What delivery method? What yield? You could be talking about anything from a firecracker to a nuclear bomb. Rocket system? Dropped off a plane? Mobile launch truck?

You're the one saying civilians should be able to own them. Why don't you propose a suitable level of regulation.

You’re the one saying the constitution lists allowed weapons. Please show me where that list is and then I’ll propose something.

[Crunch]

And how can you feel safe knowing that their next-door neighbor has a 10-kiloton atomic bomb, and you don't??

My god, how could you possibly defend yourself?

You think the next door neighbor can shell out millions to aquire a nuclear bomb and the roughy $1.8 million per year to maintain it? Really?

My god, do you even hear yourself?

[Crunch]

The point of the bomb question is to point out that some of the "arms" required to defeat a tyrannical government are subject to regulation. Once some regulations are established it becomes difficult to refuse any regulation which seems to be the current interpretation of the 2nd amendment.

Also, it proves the idea that 2nd amendment prohibits all regulation is absurd. It should be untenable to suggest that any yahoo should be able to buy enough explosives to level a building. Which would be why there are rules for the purchasing and sale of explosives.

The point you guys continue to ignore, for obvious reasons, is that the Taliban secured the unconditional surrender of US forces. They did it without WMDs or even any air support. How do square that reality with your WMD requirements fantasy?

[Fenring]

The point you guys continue to ignore, for obvious reasons, is that the Taliban secured the unconditional surrender of US forces. They did it without WMDs or even any air support. How do square that reality with your WMD requirements fantasy?

This is possibly the strangest post I've seen you make on Ornery. Is this some kind of Dorothy Day/Ghandi concept that any violent force can be defeated using completely non-violent means?

[Tom]

In Gandhi's defense, he was not under the impression that any violent force could be defeated through non-violent means.

--------------

It appears that Crunch, by the way, appears to be trying to dodge the bullet here by saying that the really nasty weapons will be too expensive for typical citizens to obtain and maintain, and moreover that they wouldn't even be necessary for effective opposition to the American armed forces, anyway. Is that a fair summary of your position, Crunch?

[Fenring]

In Gandhi's defense, he was not under the impression that any violent force could be defeated through non-violent means.

Heh, I was calling it a Ghandi concept, not Ghandi's actual practice. It was metaphoric...and in any case the Dorothy Day literal position better encapsulates the concept that you do not actually have to accumulate force equal to the opposition to prevail (hers is a special case of this, where no force is required, just sufficient martyrdom). I did not actually think this was Crunch's point anyhow 

[jc44]

And how can you feel safe knowing that their next-door neighbor has a 10-kiloton atomic bomb, and you don't??

My god, how could you possibly defend yourself?

You think the next door neighbor can shell out millions to aquire a nuclear bomb and the roughy $1.8 million per year to maintain it? Really?

My god, do you even hear yourself?

Lets try the much simpler and cheaper alternative of - don't you feel so much safer on the subway knowing that the guy sitting next to you has a bandolier of grenades on him?

[Mynnion]

And how can you feel safe knowing that their next-door neighbor has a 10-kiloton atomic bomb, and you don't??

My god, how could you possibly defend yourself?

You think the next door neighbor can shell out millions to aquire a nuclear bomb and the roughy $1.8 million per year to maintain it? Really?

My god, do you even hear yourself?

Maybe not my next door neighbor but there are individuals who could.  There are also corporations that could.  But why choose the most extreme.  The Oklahoma City bomber used fertilizer.  Is C4 more affordable?  How many people can you kill with it detonated at the correct time and place?  I know I need it to protect myself from the nut cases in the government, roving gangs of thugs, and/or the next zombie apocalypse.

[Crunch]

And how can you feel safe knowing that their next-door neighbor has a 10-kiloton atomic bomb, and you don't??

My god, how could you possibly defend yourself?

You think the next door neighbor can shell out millions to aquire a nuclear bomb and the roughy $1.8 million per year to maintain it? Really?

My god, do you even hear yourself?

Lets try the much simpler and cheaper alternative of - don't you feel so much safer on the subway knowing that the guy sitting next to you has a bandolier of grenades on him?

I dunno. Is he sitting there quietly and reading a book? Should I feel threatened by that? Why?

You guys constantly ascribe intent onto inanimate objects and fantasize about what weapons the average person may own despite multimillion dollar price tags. Is there any way to keep this in the realm of reality. Appears not.

[Crunch]

And how can you feel safe knowing that their next-door neighbor has a 10-kiloton atomic bomb, and you don't??

My god, how could you possibly defend yourself?

You think the next door neighbor can shell out millions to aquire a nuclear bomb and the roughy $1.8 million per year to maintain it? Really?

My god, do you even hear yourself?

Maybe not my next door neighbor but there are individuals who could.  There are also corporations that could.  But why choose the most extreme.  The Oklahoma City bomber used fertilizer.  Is C4 more affordable?  How many people can you kill with it detonated at the correct time and place?  I know I need it to protect myself from the nut cases in the government, roving gangs of thugs, and/or the next zombie apocalypse.

corporations are not people and I think we would all agree that treating them as though they are is a bad idea. It’s also extremely unlikely Gates, Musk, Bezos, et al are going to buy WMDs. They’ll buy politicians, cheaper and easier to do.

[Fenring]

corporations are not people and I think we would all agree that treating them as though they are is a bad idea. It’s also extremely unlikely Gates, Musk, Bezos, et al are going to buy WMDs. They’ll buy politicians, cheaper and easier to do.

Haha, are you joking? Musk would totally buy ridiculous armaments and then tweet about them all the time. He's a technophile. And Bezos the narcissist, yeah, I'm sure his moves would all be based on Vulcan logic.

[Mynnion]

Quote from: Mynnion on Today at 07:49:49 AM
Quote
And how can you feel safe knowing that their next-door neighbor has a 10-kiloton atomic bomb, and you don't??

My god, how could you possibly defend yourself?

You think the next door neighbor can shell out millions to aquire a nuclear bomb and the roughy $1.8 million per year to maintain it? Really?

My god, do you even hear yourself?

Maybe not my next door neighbor but there are individuals who could.  There are also corporations that could.  But why choose the most extreme.  The Oklahoma City bomber used fertilizer.  Is C4 more affordable?  How many people can you kill with it detonated at the correct time and place?  I know I need it to protect myself from the nut cases in the government, roving gangs of thugs, and/or the next zombie apocalypse.

corporations are not people and I think we would all agree that treating them as though they are is a bad idea. It’s also extremely unlikely Gates, Musk, Bezos, et al are going to buy WMDs. They’ll buy politicians, cheaper and easier to do.

Heard of Citizen's United?

You are also ignoring the questions about cheaper means of mass killing.  I agree that Nukes are a long shot but you refuse to recognize limits so all possibilities are fair game.

[yossarian22c]

...

corporations are not people and I think we would all agree that treating them as though they are is a bad idea.
...

Care to let the conservatives on the Supreme court know that it is a bad idea. Every time they get a chance they expand corporate personhood rights.

[yossarian22c]

...
I dunno. Is he sitting there quietly and reading a book? Should I feel threatened by that? Why?
...

How do you know he isn't one of the people you claim needs mental health care? Mass shooters aren't walking around muttering and twitching. They are just angry, frustrated, and hopeless. Can you tell at a glance that he's just waiting for the car to get crowded then pull all the pins and kill as many people as he can? If he's sitting there unarmed then that isn't a possibility you need to consider.

[Crunch]

...

corporations are not people and I think we would all agree that treating them as though they are is a bad idea.
...

Care to let the conservatives on the Supreme court know that it is a bad idea. Every time they get a chance they expand corporate personhood rights.

I would love to. Unfortunately, they don't listen to me.

[Crunch]

...
I dunno. Is he sitting there quietly and reading a book? Should I feel threatened by that? Why?
...

How do you know he isn't one of the people you claim needs mental health care? Mass shooters aren't walking around muttering and twitching. They are just angry, frustrated, and hopeless. Can you tell at a glance that he's just waiting for the car to get crowded then pull all the pins and kill as many people as he can?

Well, can you tell at a glance that he's normal? Odds are really good that he is. If he's a normal dude, sitting there quietly, why should he be deprived of his rights? We don't know how he'd vote too, maybe we should curtail that right? You know, just in case. But if he jumped up and started pulling out a grenade, do you think I would just sit there and consign myself to the fate he dictates?

If he's sitting there unarmed then that isn't a possibility you need to consider.

The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, you know. Because you're fearful, does not mean he loses his right to presumption of innocence.

If he's sitting there unarmed, then shouldn't we also consider his grenades are concealed?!?! Oh my God, he could have a dozen grenades under that jacket or in his backpack! Perhaps even a small-scale thermonucelar warhead, just ready to detonate! ER MAH GERD, BERMBS ERVERERWHER!

[Crunch]

Quote from: Mynnion on Today at 07:49:49 AM
Quote
And how can you feel safe knowing that their next-door neighbor has a 10-kiloton atomic bomb, and you don't??

My god, how could you possibly defend yourself?

You think the next door neighbor can shell out millions to aquire a nuclear bomb and the roughy $1.8 million per year to maintain it? Really?

My god, do you even hear yourself?

Maybe not my next door neighbor but there are individuals who could.  There are also corporations that could.  But why choose the most extreme.  The Oklahoma City bomber used fertilizer.  Is C4 more affordable?  How many people can you kill with it detonated at the correct time and place?  I know I need it to protect myself from the nut cases in the government, roving gangs of thugs, and/or the next zombie apocalypse.

corporations are not people and I think we would all agree that treating them as though they are is a bad idea. It’s also extremely unlikely Gates, Musk, Bezos, et al are going to buy WMDs. They’ll buy politicians, cheaper and easier to do.

Heard of Citizen's United?

Citizen's United over­turned elec­tion spend­ing restric­tions that date back more than 100 years, essentially giving corporations first amendment rights. It can just as easily be challenged and overturned and likely should.

You are also ignoring the questions about cheaper means of mass killing.  I agree that Nukes are a long shot but you refuse to recognize limits so all possibilities are fair game.

ALL possibilities are fair game ... except that the possibility that they might be a law-abiding citizen with no intent to harm anyone. That possibility is just not allowed.

The idea that any individual has the means and desire to acquire a nuclear weapon is just absurd, it's the stuff of fiction. And that they would actually use one? Come on, can we stay in reality just a little bit and not go down the road of logical fallacies?

[Crunch]

corporations are not people and I think we would all agree that treating them as though they are is a bad idea. It’s also extremely unlikely Gates, Musk, Bezos, et al are going to buy WMDs. They’ll buy politicians, cheaper and easier to do.

Haha, are you joking? Musk would totally buy ridiculous armaments and then tweet about them all the time. He's a technophile. And Bezos the narcissist, yeah, I'm sure his moves would all be based on Vulcan logic.

Yeah? Then why hasn't he? Where's his F18 and his B2? Where are his tanks and private army to support and use them? Are you thinking he's put nukes in space on a secretly orbiting space station?

If you say he would totally buy them, point out to me where he has. Let's see this list of military hardware wealthy people buy that you fantasize about.

[Tom]

You guys constantly ascribe intent onto inanimate objects and fantasize about what weapons the average person may own...

For my part, I ascribe no intent to objects. Rather, I assume intent on the part of people who expend effort beyond the average to acquire weapons.