Author Topic: The theory that Dems want to ban guns  (Read 86325 times)

JoshCrow

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
« Reply #50 on: January 11, 2016, 10:55:50 PM »
But my main point isn't about a nefarious agenda or Obama winking at the camera, but rather that if a prominent leader of the gun control movement such as Obama is calling the other side crazy then what hope is there for real dialogue? It will just continue in the vein of each side trying to sneak changes past the other side with no understanding or agreement.

I think a far more nefarious thing is to police your every word until you are incapable of expressing anything other than a feigned "respectful disagreement" in the face of lunacy. This isn't a marriage, and Obama's wife didn't just ask him if she looks fat in that dress.

"My dear sir, I see and fully respect that you believe federal agents are going to break own your door and confiscate all your guns."

Nope, sorry, crazy ideas are still crazy. Call a spade a spade. I'm surprised to hear you advocate otherwise. When is the last time you can remember any politically charged issue involving millions of people being solved because both sides said "yeah, you are totally reasonable and we just disagree"?

This is to say nothing about the fact that you are expending energy on a really very oblique comment that is degrees removed from being any sort of direct indictment of people. To point to this thing reminds me of "microaggressions", and in a bad way.
« Last Edit: January 11, 2016, 11:03:28 PM by JoshCrow »

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
« Reply #51 on: January 11, 2016, 11:55:20 PM »
Nope, sorry, crazy ideas are still crazy. Call a spade a spade. I'm surprised to hear you advocate otherwise. When is the last time you can remember any politically charged issue involving millions of people being solved because both sides said "yeah, you are totally reasonable and we just disagree"?

This is to say nothing about the fact that you are expending energy on a really very oblique comment that is degrees removed from being any sort of direct indictment of people. To point to this thing reminds me of "microaggressions", and in a bad way.

So...should I count this as one vote in favor of partisan politics in the realm of gun control? Just because I don't expect politicians to speak to each other reasonably doesn't mean I have to like it. Rather than thinking of my comments as a microaggression against Obama, I would suggest you think of them instead as macroaggression against an absurd partisan climate where ridicule replaces debate. I count Obama's comments in the video as only being one aspect of that, and certainly not the whole story. It's not as if there's no gun lobby to deal with, after all.

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
« Reply #52 on: January 12, 2016, 12:23:40 AM »
Josh, if criminalizing any sort of gun ownership of handguns for home or personal defense purposes is not Obama's end game, them why does he dodge the question with that obfuscation about what can he do in a year?  The combination of calling the question crazy while refusing to give a plain answer, bodes very poorly. If the answer really is no, then why not just say NO, that's not where I want America to end up?


AI Wessex

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
« Reply #53 on: January 12, 2016, 08:35:46 AM »
Obama's reply about one year left to his term was obviously an intent to deceive, bamboozle, mislead, feint, dupe the public out of their rights.  But this sort of despicable dishonesty is typical of people with power.  Look, you obtuse suit, we didn't ask if you were trying to eradicate gun rights during your term. We asked if your intent was to eradicate gun rights. If you are too much of a pussycat to answer the question just say no comment. Don't insult our intelligence.
This is the kind of comment that shows why it's futile to "defend" Obama, since there is nothing in this mini-rant worth paying attention to.  Even Obama is obtuse, it seems.

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
« Reply #54 on: January 12, 2016, 09:15:40 AM »
"Even Obama"

Oh heaven forbid that one should say that an elected politician was playing coy and obtuse in one of his public statements.  The Outright blasphemy of my allegation! Have I no respect for delicate authority worshippers?
« Last Edit: January 12, 2016, 09:18:18 AM by Pete at Home »

JoshCrow

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
« Reply #55 on: January 12, 2016, 09:23:38 AM »
Josh, if criminalizing any sort of gun ownership of handguns for home or personal defense purposes is not Obama's end game, them why does he dodge the question with that obfuscation about what can he do in a year?  The combination of calling the question crazy while refusing to give a plain answer, bodes very poorly. If the answer really is no, then why not just say NO, that's not where I want America to end up?

I'm not convinced his answer WAS obfuscation (if anything it was omission), since Obama is entering what is widely known as the lame duck phase of his presidency (one could argue he's been there for a long time already). The concept of the lame duck is the widely and popularly accepted notion that a president in their last year has very little political capital to spend to do anything major.

I agree that Obama could have followed that by saying "but just wait until Hillary gets in - she'll make major changes!". But why would he say that? You are basically asking Obama to undermine his own position in an interview! Regardless of whether he is right or wrong in your eyes, is it reasonable to expect a president to deliberately present evidence counter to their own agenda? I do not believe any president has ever been held to that standard, sir. IT would be lovely if people adopted purely objective positions and stated arguments against their own beliefs - but while we wait for that to happen, we've got the reality of politics to deal with.

JoshCrow

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
« Reply #56 on: January 12, 2016, 09:32:14 AM »

So...should I count this as one vote in favor of partisan politics in the realm of gun control? Just because I don't expect politicians to speak to each other reasonably doesn't mean I have to like it.

You are advocating FOR a public figure to take pains to conceal what they believe in an interview. I always took you to be someone who recognized the problem with that, someone who was tired of the emptiness of their speeches which are designed to offend nobody and therefore say nothing. It is fascinating to see you take up the contrary position so quickly.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
« Reply #57 on: January 12, 2016, 09:53:08 AM »

So...should I count this as one vote in favor of partisan politics in the realm of gun control? Just because I don't expect politicians to speak to each other reasonably doesn't mean I have to like it.

You are advocating FOR a public figure to take pains to conceal what they believe in an interview. I always took you to be someone who recognized the problem with that, someone who was tired of the emptiness of their speeches which are designed to offend nobody and therefore say nothing. It is fascinating to see you take up the contrary position so quickly.

I'm not quite sure what you're getting at. How am I advocating for obfuscation of speech, again? What I brought up was Obama's possible insinuation that the founding was based on a crazy conspiracy theory about England, and that anyone who fears government encroachment is a looney. As far as I can tell I'm not addressing the issue of hiding what one thinks, but rather raising concern about what Obama did say. Unless your argument is that any criticism of what a politician says is automatic advocacy for politicians hiding their thoughts? I guess you could infer that, but it's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that if Obama wants to convince people the government isn't coming for their guns the way to do it isn't by saying that government is your buddy that you should totally trust. It's a bad argument that will convince no one on the other side and is instead engineered to get people who already agree with him to think worse of people on the other side by subjecting them to ridicule. It's basically the opposite of establishing common ground - it's divisive to the extreme.

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
« Reply #58 on: January 12, 2016, 10:03:24 AM »
"I'm not convinced his answer WAS obfuscation (if anything it was omission), "

Ridiculous. Saying those that ask that question are crazy is not "omission."  it's comission of emperors new clothes class obfuscation.  So the one year line just plays US for Fools. 

"Do I want to take people's guns away? In the first place people that ask that are crazy people and in the second place -- oh look! A bird!"

The fact that we cannot expect him to be honest does not make his reply less obfuscatory. The fact that most other politicians do this too does not mean that it is not obfuscation. 

Bernie Sanders has shown that it is possible to advocate for gun control without treating 55% of US voters like a dangerous delusional psychotic that needs to be talked down and duped to avoid mayhem. 

I have already recognized that it's not just Obama and the left that treat the rule of law and basic fundamental rights were some sort of ticking time bomb that needs to be disarmed with "whatever it takes" levels of duplicity and usurped force. But ticking time bomb or no, obfuscation is still obfuscation.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
« Reply #59 on: January 12, 2016, 10:15:32 AM »
....since Obama is entering what is widely known as the lame duck phase of his presidency (one could argue he's been there for a long time already). The concept of the lame duck is the widely and popularly accepted notion that a president in their last year has very little political capital to spend to do anything major.
I don't find it likely that President Obama will have a "lame duck" period, that concept ties directly into Presidents' political capital to influence Congress having expired and their ability to get legislation they are willing to sign passed.  President Obama does not now, nor has he routinely, worked with Congress in the least.  In fact, I'd guess we'll see the opposite of a lame duck president because President Obama will be more free to act in autocratic ways than he has been in the past.  We'll know in a year, but I'm willing to bet President Obama will be more active this year than previously.

JoshCrow

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
« Reply #60 on: January 12, 2016, 11:03:40 AM »
I'm not quite sure what you're getting at. How am I advocating for obfuscation of speech, again? What I brought up was Obama's possible insinuation that the founding was based on a crazy conspiracy theory about England, and that anyone who fears government encroachment is a looney. As far as I can tell I'm not addressing the issue of hiding what one thinks, but rather raising concern about what Obama did say. Unless your argument is that any criticism of what a politician says is automatic advocacy for politicians hiding their thoughts? I guess you could infer that, but it's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that if Obama wants to convince people the government isn't coming for their guns the way to do it isn't by saying that government is your buddy that you should totally trust. It's a bad argument that will convince no one on the other side and is instead engineered to get people who already agree with him to think worse of people on the other side by subjecting them to ridicule. It's basically the opposite of establishing common ground - it's divisive to the extreme.

You are basically saying Obama committed a microaggression by referring to "some distant authority" rather than speaking with deference to the point of view of gun culture people. Let me posit a different point of view - I'd say Obama was being downright charitable. Consider the bigger picture of his point about the founders - he was attempting to provide a reasonable portrait of an unreasonable culture by suggesting that it is "an American tradition" and that there are historical reasons for Americans loving their guns. I'd say that is an overly generous reading of current American gun culture - to say that these folks have a "historical excuse" for their enthusiasm for weaponry is, I think, a bit of hand-waving self-justification that the gun culture itself employs. In a very real sense, Obama was giving them their own phony justification. If he puts a skeptical spin on it, why should anyone blame him? I'd rather he hadn't even thrown them that bone.

JoshCrow

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
« Reply #61 on: January 12, 2016, 11:12:18 AM »
President Obama does not now, nor has he routinely, worked with Congress in the least.

It takes two to tango.

In any case, I would posit that this is basically the future of US politics for as long as the filibuster continues to exist. I doubt it matters who is in office anymore, and there is essentially no more electoral advantage that moderation can present over extremism.

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
« Reply #62 on: January 12, 2016, 11:14:48 AM »
"I'd say Obama was being downright charitable"

Arguably "Charitable" to Timothy McVeigh by identifying the founding fathers with the extreme gun fringe.  But that's because his real goal is to put moderate second amendment advocates under erasure. Basically he's pulling an Al Wessex, lumping all his opponents into a single monolithic point of view.

This isn't the only time that the cynical authoritarian left colludes with the lunatic right to dupe the public and suppress the reasonable center.  It happens in the birth control debate as well where partial birth abortion is treated as morally indistinguishable from use of an IUD.  Calling blastocysts "frozen embryos" and so on.


D.W.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
« Reply #63 on: January 12, 2016, 11:15:31 AM »
Years of stagnation then bursts of frenzied activity as one side nails down all the power at once and pushes their agenda or rolls back the gains of their opponents?

Wonderful...  :( 
Wish I could disagree.

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
« Reply #64 on: January 12, 2016, 11:17:27 AM »
President Obama does not now, nor has he routinely, worked with Congress in the least.

It takes two to tango.

That point in no way makes O 's thesis less true. Obama is likely to be more active, not less, in his last year.

JoshCrow

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
« Reply #65 on: January 12, 2016, 11:23:59 AM »
That point in no way makes O 's thesis less true. Obama is likely to be more active, not less, in his last year.

I view this as improbable, given the limits of executive power, two opposing chambers, and given that his signature health care achievement is behind him. His chance to do big things is over. He may bark loudly enough to scare the Republican neighbors, but his cage is now closed. The rest is scaremongering - after all, he's a useful villain to have, and who ever wants to admit their their favorite enemy is now toothless and old? We'll see a few weak executive moves (like his current gun control effort) but nothing of significance. Barking, not biting.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
« Reply #66 on: January 12, 2016, 11:29:42 AM »
Consider the bigger picture of his point about the founders - he was attempting to provide a reasonable portrait of an unreasonable culture by suggesting that it is "an American tradition" and that there are historical reasons for Americans loving their guns. I'd say that is an overly generous reading of current American gun culture - to say that these folks have a "historical excuse" for their enthusiasm for weaponry is, I think, a bit of hand-waving self-justification that the gun culture itself employs.

Yes, this is a reasonable interpretation of his comment as well; I don't think the one interpretation precludes the other. Putting them together, the full message would be "Gun nuts have an historical excuse for their fear of government, which has its roots in the founding. But any further rationale for fearing government beyond that historical root is silly, since government is the good guy now." It both contextualizes fear of government as being a vestigial remnant from 1776, as well as sidelining it by suggesting that people who still think that way are living in the past. I don't think Jefferson would agree with this assessment, let's just put it that way  :P

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
« Reply #67 on: January 12, 2016, 11:39:30 AM »
"Consider the bigger picture of his point about the founders - he was attempting to provide a reasonable portrait of an unreasonable culture by suggesting that it is "an American tradition" and that there are historical reasons for Americans loving their guns."

Well argued. While that doesn't erase my complaint about the 1 year obfuscation, it does mitigate some of my frustration with the guy. 

Goes to show Al that one can actually mount a credible defense of Obama without resorting to ENC fallacy

« Last Edit: January 12, 2016, 11:42:38 AM by Pete at Home »

D.W.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
« Reply #68 on: January 12, 2016, 11:45:39 AM »
Pete given the tone of some of your criticism of the guy, it's easy to see why many people wouldn't be inclined to even attempt to defend him to you.  How someone opposes a person or position has a lot to do with the willingness of anyone to engage.  A failure to do so should not be read as an inability to provide a defense.

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
« Reply #69 on: January 12, 2016, 12:02:57 PM »
Al is always willing to engage me endlessly with respect to the use of the word "Barry".  Perhaps that too is a matter of higher importance to Al than actual gun deaths.

JoshCrow

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
« Reply #70 on: January 12, 2016, 12:05:27 PM »
It both contextualizes fear of government as being a vestigial remnant from 1776, as well as sidelining it by suggesting that people who still think that way are living in the past. I don't think Jefferson would agree with this assessment, let's just put it that way  :P

If that is the characterization, then it is one I agree with. I would note that Jefferson lived in that past. Ammon Bundy does not. That is not to suggest that a good government cannot become tyrannical, or overstep its authority, but that the current US gov't is to "tyranny" what modern "God-is-Love" Christianity is to religion in general - it is a creature that has been largely tamed and domesticated. The gun culture's talk of tyranny (as exemplified now by Ammon Bundy) is like a person whose ancestor was once mauled by a tiger being afraid of a housecat. People running around talking about the US being tyrannical do not understand what real tyranny looks like and have no concept of degree - only a binary aversion to cat-like creatures.

D.W.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
« Reply #71 on: January 12, 2016, 12:10:35 PM »
Al is always willing to engage me endlessly with respect to the use of the word "Barry".  Perhaps that too is a matter of higher importance to Al than actual gun deaths.

Got to admit it bugs me as well.  I just choose to ignore it (until now).  I'm glad AI gives you the irritated response you seem to crave when you use your pet name.  We all got to get our kicks somewhere.

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
« Reply #72 on: January 12, 2016, 12:22:56 PM »
Josh, imagine that you were part of the majority of Americans who believe that the 2ND amendment gives them the right to bear arms, but do NOT believe in that right wing Jeffersonian fable that the purpose is to overthrow a tyrannical government.

If you live in the political center, Obama has brilliantly bulldozed your position with these sweet syrupy word to the seditious far right. 

Thomas *censored*ing Jefferson had nothing to do with the writing of the Federal Bill of Rights.  He was in Paris at the time.  When you interpret the BoR through Jefferson you get monstrously stupid *censored* like Dredd Scott.  Or this institutional revolution crap.  But don't accuse O of being merciful. He's one coddling the lunatic right to *censored* over the center. 

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
« Reply #73 on: January 12, 2016, 12:30:19 PM »
Al is always willing to engage me endlessly with respect to the use of the word "Barry".  Perhaps that too is a matter of higher importance to Al than actual gun deaths.

Got to admit it bugs me as well.  I just choose to ignore it (until now).  I'm glad AI gives you the irritated response you seem to crave when you use your pet name.  We all got to get our kicks somewhere.

Say what you need to say to distinguish yourself from me. :).
But under that PR, you should notice I haven't called O by his Christian name "Barry" for months..  to placate Al I have faithfully called the President by his Muslim name.  Even though I still cling to the theory that the president is the most Christian president in office since Carter.  Not that it's saying much to be more Christian that Reagan Bush or Clinton :)
« Last Edit: January 12, 2016, 12:32:22 PM by Pete at Home »

D.W.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
« Reply #74 on: January 12, 2016, 12:35:21 PM »
His "Christian" name?  Was he baptized with it or something?  I got to admit, more than being disrespectful, I just don't get the nickname at all.  How you get from Barack to Barry just confuses me.  It's like Bill from William.  If you hate your "full name" and want to shorten it to... whatever so be it.  But shortening it for someone else, when it doesn't make sense?  That just bugs me for no good reason I suppose.  :P

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
« Reply #75 on: January 12, 2016, 12:40:24 PM »
The gun culture's talk of tyranny (as exemplified now by Ammon Bundy) is like a person whose ancestor was once mauled by a tiger being afraid of a housecat. People running around talking about the US being tyrannical do not understand what real tyranny looks like and have no concept of degree - only a binary aversion to cat-like creatures.

That's easy to say if you're an American. Just like the colonial empires did, America exports its violence. The British learned that it's better to pillage foreigners than your own people, since you need a positive labor base and stability back home. But even for Americans and their rights, the question isn't a binary one of "tyranny versus no tyranny." The argument goes that government by its very nature always tends towards tyranny or bureaucracy, and that this must be continuously opposed. To suppose that because a dead man said so makes it untrue is peculiar.

So what does real tyranny look like? Is it foot soldiers running down the streets gunning down dissidents? Is it more like 1984 where there is apparently very little local crime or violence but perpetual violence 'somewhere else' along with regimented thinking? Or is it more like Brave New World where life is a giant party, as least so long as you're part of the privileged class, and where otherwise social mobility is non-existent and divisive ideas have been washed away? The answer is yes. Slavery can look like many different things, some of them not altogether unpleasant. The Matrix covered this angle quite sufficiently, where slavery doesn't have to mean whips and suffering - that is, unless you oppose the system. I think it's best not to focus only on antiquated notions of tyranny when discussing how to prevent tyranny going forward, although they're best not forgotten either. But the way of the future for tyranny is in the unseen variety, where it doesn't feel like that at all and where you might even like it. Consider for instance streamlining of opinion and narrative: right now American politics has been divided into tight partisan camps, and even people who don't subscribe to one or the other as stated are obliged to nevertheless pick one for fear the other will win. Thus the continuum of ideas has been narrowed down to two, and those two are at times scarcely distinguishable from each other. Do most people feel like their minds are being controlled or manipulated? Probably not, but they are. This is a relatively new method and isn't what we historically think of as being regimented thought in the sense of thought control from religion, for instance.

One can nevertheless still look at older indications of authoritarian force by government that still go on, one of which is (and always has been) tight control of the currency. One of the major issues for the colonies, from what I've read, was the inability to mint their own coin and having to use English currency under English authority. Just like America has done since Bretton Woods, the British Empire tightly enforced the use of their currency by their colonies to ensure a system of trade in pounds sterling. Any attempt at minting one's own currency would be equivalent to revolution in itself. Similarly, after America won the right after WWII to become the world's trade currency (thus empowering the Fed and the American banks enormously to control international commerce) it fought hard over the years to maintain this system and still does. One element of this control is what we call "petro-dollars" which is nothing more than currency dominion through oil transactions where American currency ends up being funnels to Arabia and then inevitably back to America. Now, maintaining an accepted and stable currency is functionally effective and so on the "it works" level this is ok. But when it's enforced at the point of a gun it means that at the end of the day powerful nations tend towards behaving as the British Empire did; using cheap labor in developing countries (quasi-colonies), controlling and enforcing the currency, maintaining a military presence...everywhere, and disarming one's citizens to prevent revolt. Whether this last point is really anyone's agenda is a separate discussion, but these are standard tools of empire.

The major difference, though, between America and the British Empire is in their quite different constitutions, and therein lies the battle many Americans feels is going on between upholding the constitution versus just bending over and becoming the new British Empire. It is not entirely surprising that someone who endorses American hegemony as it stands now would cast aspersions on the spirit of the revolution against the British. After all, what did they do that was so bad? They just wanted to control the currency and levy taxes. That's perfectly reasonable, right? Then what was the revolution for?
« Last Edit: January 12, 2016, 12:44:11 PM by Fenring »

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
« Reply #76 on: January 12, 2016, 12:48:03 PM »
"How you get from Barack to Barry just confuses me."

 I didn't come up with it. I saw it from Chris Matthews, "Give 'em hell Barry." And he meant it as a compliment. 

If you are sick of agreeing with me on all substantive issues and feel the need to nitpick over a word to seem different, then bounce an old thread where I actually called him Barry.

I say some respectful things about Obama and some disrespectful things.  "Barry" is neither. 

As for derivation of nickname... Do you know the nickname for Jesus in Spanish?  "Chewy". I kid you not.

D.W.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
« Reply #77 on: January 12, 2016, 12:51:05 PM »
You brought it up, not me.  But learning that Chewbacca may be a Jesus figure was worth it.  This requires some reevaluation of one of my favorite series of movies...

And I've stated before I give people a harder time the closer they are to my political opinions.  Wouldn't want to get lazy bashing the obviously wrong all the time opposition.  :P
« Last Edit: January 12, 2016, 12:53:51 PM by D.W. »

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
« Reply #78 on: January 12, 2016, 01:02:12 PM »
"That's easy to say if you're an American. Just like the colonial empires did, America exports its violence. The British learned that it's better to pillage foreigners"

Yes and no. It's only very late in the game that British lord lings and their minions even started seeing their fellow Brits as "their people." A jury of one's peers meant a jury of one's social standing. Google  Peterloo if you imagine Tyranny did not exist in England during or after the American Revolution.

Loss of guns would not in itself lead to Tyranny, but if we allow the government to abridge the bill of rights without a legitimate amendment, only a fool or liar would argue that the same process would not be used to curtail other fundamental rights.  Guns don't stop tyranny. The Constitution stops tyranny. 

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
« Reply #79 on: January 12, 2016, 01:09:17 PM »
You brought it up, not me.  But learning that Chewbacca may be a Jesus figure was worth it.  This requires some reevaluation of one of my favorite series of movies...

:) Jesus (pronounced in Spanish as "Hey Zeus") is a common name in Spanish.  But if you referred to Jesus Christ as Chewy, a Spanish priest would probably go after you lik Al did me over calling the Pres Barry.  Nothing wrong with anglicising Barry as a nickname from Barack; the offense lies in taking the name of the One in vain.

And I've stated before I give people a harder time the closer they are to my political opinions.  Wouldn't want to get lazy bashing the obviously wrong all the time opposition.  :P

Exactly. No hard feelings. I respect that.

JoshCrow

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
« Reply #80 on: January 12, 2016, 01:18:29 PM »
Just like the colonial empires did, America exports its violence. The British learned that it's better to pillage foreigners than your own people, since you need a positive labor base and stability back home.

I would note that 'tyranny' describes a relationship between a government and its governed population - and is not to be confused with foreign policy concepts.

Quote
But even for Americans and their rights, the question isn't a binary one of "tyranny versus no tyranny." The argument goes that government by its very nature always tends towards tyranny or bureaucracy, and that this must be continuously opposed.

Interesting of you to slip "bureaucracy" in there. Can you fight that with guns? We are, after all, discussing the second amendment. More on that point below, but I would note that the "by its very nature" part is, I think, wrong - or at least is ruling out the possibility of a firm governance with liberty as a core value. I think it is false to rule out that possibility.

Quote
To suppose that because a dead man said so makes it untrue is peculiar.

When you lean on a historical figure's viewpoint, you are subject to the differences between that person's time and ours. Some things don't change, but others do. If we're lucky, people's viewpoints absorb new information without forgetting the lessons of the past. Dead people, however, don't absorb new developments very well.

Quote
So what does real tyranny look like? Is it foot soldiers running down the streets gunning down dissidents? Is it more like 1984 where there is apparently very little local crime or violence but perpetual violence 'somewhere else' along with regimented thinking? Or is it more like Brave New World where life is a giant party, as least so long as you're part of the privileged class, and where otherwise social mobility is non-existent and divisive ideas have been washed away? The answer is yes. Slavery can look like many different things, some of them not altogether unpleasant. The Matrix covered this angle quite sufficiently, where slavery doesn't have to mean whips and suffering - that is, unless you oppose the system. I think it's best not to focus only on antiquated notions of tyranny when discussing how to prevent tyranny going forward, although they're best not forgotten either.

This is about the 2nd amendment and gun culture. Which tyranny scenario above is relevant? I would argue "only those that present something to shoot at". Other forms of tyranny are fun to discuss but not really relevant here.

Quote
But the way of the future for tyranny is in the unseen variety, where it doesn't feel like that at all and where you might even like it. Consider for instance streamlining of opinion and narrative: right now American politics has been divided into tight partisan camps, and even people who don't subscribe to one or the other as stated are obliged to nevertheless pick one for fear the other will win. Thus the continuum of ideas has been narrowed down to two, and those two are at times scarcely distinguishable from each other. Do most people feel like their minds are being controlled or manipulated? Probably not, but they are. This is a relatively new method and isn't what we historically think of as being regimented thought in the sense of thought control from religion, for instance.


This is indeed a problem, but you can't shoot it, and I wouldn't call it "tyranny" of the kind Jefferson spoke. It is a major digression in our topic.

Quote
It is not entirely surprising that someone who endorses American hegemony as it stands now would cast aspersions on the spirit of the revolution against the British. After all, what did they do that was so bad? They just wanted to control the currency and levy taxes. That's perfectly reasonable, right? Then what was the revolution for?

Had you lived then, do you think you would have supported the revolution? If so - why? I would invite you to answer your own questions and draw a compelling modern parallel - if you can. I don't think the present and past are as similar as you seem to be implying.

D.W.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
« Reply #81 on: January 12, 2016, 01:45:49 PM »
I think police brutality is the type of relevant tyranny today.  When the cost of abusing power is potentially death rather than suspension without pay or just more paperwork, are we sure being armed doesn't prevent tyranny? 

That said, if a cop wanted to whip my ass for kicks, he could pull me over, I must announce I am armed to stay in good legal standing for retaining my CPL.  He can then disarm me, then choose to whip my ass...  So does it really prevent anything?  Probably not.

While one can argue how bad it COULD get if we were totally helpless and disarmed when facing our government the truth is we are already at such a ridiculous disadvantage as to make the point purely academic. (IMO anyway)

Hell if I saw someone holding a uniformed officer at gun point, without knowing anything about what lead up to that point, I would still endeavor to aid the officer...  Programmed by the man and the man doesn't even sign my pay checks!

For me, gun ownership, if it relates to the founding of this country at all, is the ideal that we determine our own fates.  That we don't count on others to protect us, we do so ourselves and as a community.  Law enforcement and "the government" is an extension of our community not a threatening outside influence.

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
« Reply #82 on: January 12, 2016, 01:49:56 PM »
"
Interesting of you to slip "bureaucracy" in there. Can you fight that with guns? We are, after all, discussing the second amendment."

I already addressed that, Josh, and you did not reply.

Again:
Loss of guns would not in itself lead to Tyranny, but if we allow the government to abridge the bill of rights without a legitimate amendment, only a fool or liar would argue that the same process would not be used to curtail other fundamental rights.  Guns don't stop tyranny. The Constitution stops tyranny.

Why do you insist, Josh, thatcher second amendment's validity hinges on the people's need to overthrow the government?  Iirc no one on the board has taken that position.  Ammo Bundy ain't here.  He's in some isolated corner of Oregon.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
« Reply #83 on: January 12, 2016, 01:58:39 PM »
Guns don't stop tyranny. The Constitution stops tyranny.
Based on what?  You may have a better understanding of history than I do.  When in history were arms limited to an elite or ruling class of a country and tyranny was not the result?

The Constitution means nothing if the government doesn't respect the citizenry.

JoshCrow

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
« Reply #84 on: January 12, 2016, 01:59:37 PM »
Loss of guns would not in itself lead to Tyranny, but if we allow the government to abridge the bill of rights without a legitimate amendment, only a fool or liar would argue that the same process would not be used to curtail other fundamental rights.  Guns don't stop tyranny. The Constitution stops tyranny.

"if we allow" and "The Constitution stops tyranny" are both statements I would call moot without the threat of force to back them up. After all, a Constitution that is not enforced BY force is merely ink on a page.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
« Reply #85 on: January 12, 2016, 03:00:39 PM »
I would note that 'tyranny' describes a relationship between a government and its governed population - and is not to be confused with foreign policy concepts.

Yes. I was expressing that a lack of literal violence against the American people isn't evidence of a lack of tyranny, despite the common low-brow interpretation of tyranny as being a brutal dictator who guns down opposition. I listed foreign policy involving violence as a common sign of tyranny, but it is not necessarily tyranny in and of itself, no.

Quote
Interesting of you to slip "bureaucracy" in there. Can you fight that with guns? We are, after all, discussing the second amendment. More on that point below, but I would note that the "by its very nature" part is, I think, wrong - or at least is ruling out the possibility of a firm governance with liberty as a core value. I think it is false to rule out that possibility.

As others have mentioned, not every evil is fought with a gun. Ideally few are, in fact. As with above, an entrenched and entitled bureaucracy is often a sign of tyranny, but it can also be a tyranny unto itself insofar as it often establishes de facto rule of law that cannot be traced back to any individual who will take responsibility for it. Another name for it is a system absent a leader who can be held responsible for it. Does this ring a bell in American politics now? Most problems in the U.S. now aren't anyone's tangible fault or responsibility even though in some vague sense the Congress or the President can be blamed for most anything.

Quote
When you lean on a historical figure's viewpoint, you are subject to the differences between that person's time and ours. Some things don't change, but others do. If we're lucky, people's viewpoints absorb new information without forgetting the lessons of the past. Dead people, however, don't absorb new developments very well.

True. So tell me, do we have new information about human nature as it pertains to politics that was unavailable to the Founders? I'll grant you we have new information, but is it in the sphere of political philosophy, and does this information invalidate what was known in the late 1700's? The one area where I think you're surely right, though, is in the area of technology and how that affects government operation. I would say, however, that in this era of technology we should have more reasons to fear government, not less. The more tools and powers it has (officially or unofficially) the more ways in which people lose control of their lives.

Quote
Quote
So what does real tyranny look like? Is it foot soldiers running down the streets gunning down dissidents? Is it more like 1984 where there is apparently very little local crime or violence but perpetual violence 'somewhere else' along with regimented thinking? Or is it more like Brave New World where life is a giant party, as least so long as you're part of the privileged class, and where otherwise social mobility is non-existent and divisive ideas have been washed away? The answer is yes. Slavery can look like many different things, some of them not altogether unpleasant. The Matrix covered this angle quite sufficiently, where slavery doesn't have to mean whips and suffering - that is, unless you oppose the system. I think it's best not to focus only on antiquated notions of tyranny when discussing how to prevent tyranny going forward, although they're best not forgotten either.

This is about the 2nd amendment and gun culture. Which tyranny scenario above is relevant? I would argue "only those that present something to shoot at". Other forms of tyranny are fun to discuss but not really relevant here.

We're talking about gun culture but also more broadly about the constitution and worrying about government encroachment. Not every problem is one to shoot at, and the 2nd Amendment isn't only about literally opposing government with arms. Note that the intent in the founding was for there to never be a permanent standing army, and the 2nd plays directly into this fact. Since that reality has changed it does, indeed, alter the context of the 2nd to an extent, but the question in my mind isn't whether or not to ignore it because it's a bit out of date, but rather whether or not the constitution matters. All forms of tyranny are relevant when discussing whether or not the constitution should be ignored rather than changed. I'm all for the idea of drafting new Amendments, but not for ignoring previous ones. The issue here is whether government should be trusted innately or whether it should be doubted innately but certain people in government perhaps respected (hopefully). The gun culture issue is a current topic on this general subject.

Quote
Quote
But the way of the future for tyranny is in the unseen variety, where it doesn't feel like that at all and where you might even like it. Consider for instance streamlining of opinion and narrative: right now American politics has been divided into tight partisan camps, and even people who don't subscribe to one or the other as stated are obliged to nevertheless pick one for fear the other will win. Thus the continuum of ideas has been narrowed down to two, and those two are at times scarcely distinguishable from each other. Do most people feel like their minds are being controlled or manipulated? Probably not, but they are. This is a relatively new method and isn't what we historically think of as being regimented thought in the sense of thought control from religion, for instance.


This is indeed a problem, but you can't shoot it, and I wouldn't call it "tyranny" of the kind Jefferson spoke. It is a major digression in our topic.

Jefferson spoke about various kinds of tyranny. For instance he cited the greatest danger to American liberty not as being a military dictatorship taking over but rather as a private interest acquiring power over the currency. You can go quite deep inspecting exactly what that means and how far it goes, but that sort of tyranny isn't anything to do with people shooting guns at each other on the streets. It is no digression, believe me. People having their basic freedoms challenged has everything to do with the 2nd right now, just as it has to do with NSA surveillance and other issues of the day. In my view when Sanders discusses Wall Street reform and the NRA discusses executive overreach in a way I think they're both addressing the same basic concern, which is that large powerful forces always try to take more power for themselves and they have to be kept at bay on a regular basis.

Quote
Had you lived then, do you think you would have supported the revolution? If so - why? I would invite you to answer your own questions and draw a compelling modern parallel - if you can. I don't think the present and past are as similar as you seem to be implying.

I honestly don't know enough to say. When there's a lot to gain relative to what someone has to lose it's much easier to think of fighting against authority. That being said I'm not actually drawing a direct parallel between the revolutionary Americans vs. the Crown and the current Americans and the federal government. The situations are not equivalent or even similar in many respects. What is common, though, is the understand that any government will tend towards encroachment if given the chance. The best way to prevent that is for it to not have the tools to do that, of course, but in the case of America the partnership between government and private interests has always kept the door open for this to get worse on a regular basis. I hope I see the day when that door is closed and more trust can exist between the people and its government.

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
« Reply #86 on: January 12, 2016, 03:10:50 PM »
Loss of guns would not in itself lead to Tyranny, but if we allow the government to abridge the bill of rights without a legitimate amendment, only a fool or liar would argue that the same process would not be used to curtail other fundamental rights.  Guns don't stop tyranny. The Constitution stops tyranny.

"if we allow" and "The Constitution stops tyranny" are both statements I would call moot without the threat of force to back them up. After all, a Constitution that is not enforced BY force is merely ink on a page.

So you see modern Japan as a Tyranny?  You think Ammo Bundy really is securing our freedoms? You think Americans with their handguns could stand and fight the modern US Army?

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
« Reply #87 on: January 12, 2016, 03:27:56 PM »
"Not every problem is one to shoot at, and the 2nd Amendment isn't only about literally opposing government with arms. Note that the intent in the founding was for there to never be a permanent standing army, and the 2nd plays directly into this fact. Since that reality has changed it does, indeed, alter the context of the 2nd to an extent, but the question in my mind isn't whether or not to ignore it because it's a bit out of date, but rather whether or not the constitution matters. All forms of tyranny are relevant when discussing whether or not the constitution should be ignored rather than changed"

Correct. A government that just ignores any part of the constitution, becomes Tyrannical. If the constitution has a defect (eg slavery) then amend it.

D.W.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
« Reply #88 on: January 12, 2016, 03:45:43 PM »
Quote
You think Americans with their handguns could stand and fight the modern US Army?
So how would this play out?  Protest (possibly violent but not necessarily) that are disruptive to the economy or the operation of the government take place.  Local law enforcement is unable or unwilling to apply force to stop it.  National guard is considered but the armed forces are through some series of events deemed a more expedient or prudent response.

Scenario A has the citizens armed.  Scenario B takes place long enough after a gun banning that most have disarmed and those who didn't are not likely hid them at home rather than carry them on their person.

Scenario B asks the enlisted to intimidate people, use some muscle or the THREAT of weapon use to disperse a crowd or apprehend people.  Heck even an extreme case of shooting a violent protester would be enough to scatter an unarmed crowd.  They may find it distasteful but if they reason their C.O. has given a "lawful" order to do this they are (IMO) likely to comply. 

Scenario A asks the enlisted to use tactics almost certain to spark violence and gunfire.  They will then be forced with treating the entire crowd as combatants even though it's almost certainly only a fraction of them are both armed and prepared to instigate hostility or even resist with guns.  So now they must decide.  Do they follow the orders "knowing" it will result in a loss of life?  That's a lot different than breaking up an unarmed protest and having a worst case scenario of MAYBE having to shoot someone who "crosses the line".

I'm not one for the "to resist our government's oppression" argument for firearms but you can't ague against that opinion with a simple "do you really think you could win?" question.  Well at least until we are an all drone force where a small number of operators are projecting the power and troop moral becomes irreverent.

We would devolve into a civil war and fractured military long before we had an "army vs. citizens" conflict.  Well unless we unleash Skynet first.  :P

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
« Reply #89 on: January 12, 2016, 03:56:36 PM »
Quote
You think Americans with their handguns could stand and fight the modern US Army?
So how would this play out?  Protest (possibly violent but not necessarily) that are disruptive to the economy or the operation of the government take place.  Local law enforcement is unable or unwilling to apply force to stop it.  National guard is considered but the armed forces are through some series of events deemed a more expedient or prudent response.

Scenario A has the citizens armed.  Scenario B takes place long enough after a gun banning that most have disarmed and those who didn't are not likely hid them at home rather than carry them on their person.

Scenario B asks the enlisted to intimidate people, use some muscle or the THREAT of weapon use to disperse a crowd or apprehend people.  Heck even an extreme case of shooting a violent protester would be enough to scatter an unarmed crowd.  They may find it distasteful but if they reason their C.O. has given a "lawful" order to do this they are (IMO) likely to comply. 

Scenario A asks the enlisted to use tactics almost certain to spark violence and gunfire.  They will then be forced with treating the entire crowd as combatants even though it's almost certainly only a fraction of them are both armed and prepared to instigate hostility or even resist with guns.  So now they must decide.  Do they follow the orders "knowing" it will result in a loss of life?  That's a lot different than breaking up an unarmed protest and having a worst case scenario of MAYBE having to shoot someone who "crosses the line".

I'm not one for the "to resist our government's oppression" argument for firearms but you can't ague against that opinion with a simple "do you really think you could win?" question.  Well at least until we are an all drone force where a small number of operators are projecting the power and troop moral becomes irreverent.

We would devolve into a civil war and fractured military long before we had an "army vs. citizens" conflict.  Well unless we unleash Skynet first.  :P

What you describe is the US government acting with checks and balances. That doesn't address the argument whether family guns could check a tyrrany.   The Warsaw rebellion didn't go so well, IIRC.

I think the scenario the 2ND amendment was written for is not too unlike the situation of farmers near the Mexico border with encroaching cartels. Bandits and savages.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
« Reply #90 on: January 12, 2016, 04:01:08 PM »
So you see modern Japan as a Tyranny?
I see them as a subject nation, wholly dependent on others for their security.
Quote
You think Ammo Bundy really is securing our freedoms?
The media has been really vague about the demands he's making.  When I've investigated similar vagueness in the past, I've been surprised by how clear the actual positions of involved were.  At this point though, I have no idea.
Quote
You think Americans with their handguns could stand and fight the modern US Army?
Did you think this through at all?  Cause the answer is unreservedly yes.  The only way it's even a question is if you pretend that it would be some kind of ancient Red Coats versus colonists line fight with muskets.  The US army has trouble with occupying a country the size of Iraq and in urban fighting.  The US is so much larger than Iraq, virtually all bases are exposed to the populace, meaning garrisoning requirements are through the roof, not to mention the need to protect strategic resources like farms, factories, depots and supply lines.  That's before you consider the exposure of their family members.  And not considering the risk of defection, and non-replenishment of soldiers unless they have a stable training pipeline.  Just straight numbers the military is outnumbered by about one hundred to one in fighting age personnel.  Military training is not uncommon in the civilian population, nor are very high level technical skills.

How effectively can a 100 soldier garrison control a town of 10,000?  Protect it's own equipment?

If there were an actual civil war the side the military supported would have an advantage, but they would be hopeless in a battle with the citizens as a whole.

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
« Reply #91 on: January 12, 2016, 04:21:39 PM »
"The US army has trouble with occupying a country the size of Iraq and in urban fighting."

Absurd analogy because our root question assumes the government acting tyranically. Better analogy would be French Resistance VA Nazi's.

That's in a situation where

Gaoics79

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
« Reply #92 on: January 12, 2016, 07:46:58 PM »
Quote
Yes, it's a conspiracy. His motives are completely hidden but we know what's in his heart anyway.

This comment was a bit farther back but I wanted to address it.

Obama's an educated urban liberal. I don't say that in a pejorative sense, but simply say it as a fact.

We have already seen in every developed country where educated liberals just like Obama have taken gun control, and it's in a direction that the vast majority of gun owners in America would find objectionable. That's just a fact.

Asking me how I know that Obama wants to severely restrict or outright ban many guns like it's some insane conspiracy theory is as disingenuous as asking me how I knew with 95% certainty that Obama was lying when he said he favoured the traditional definition of marriage a few years back. It's just not rocket science. It's kind of obvious. If it's not obvious to you, you're kind of dull I hate to tell you.

Now maybe you favour a legal environment like in Canada which is highly hostile to gun ownership. That would make your views consistent with most educated urban liberals like Obama. That's fine. But let's be honest with ourselves, shall we?


JoshCrow

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
« Reply #93 on: January 12, 2016, 08:40:59 PM »
Jason, just two notes:
1. "Obama's a liberal, and liberals believe X" is a tiresome bore of a statement. None of the usual political labels are quite as significant as that, and people are complicated. Take it from me - I am now regularly called "conservative" and "liberal", to my amusement each time. I'm not saying you're wrong about Obama, but I am just tired of that line of argument.

2. I would note that a majority of gun owners in America (and about 90% of the general population) support background checks, which is a key element of what is being discussed. Yes, again, this is not necessarily "what's in his heart", but again it's not as clean as you are making it appear to be. Many, if not most, gun owners support reasonable gun control measures.
« Last Edit: January 12, 2016, 08:43:04 PM by JoshCrow »

AI Wessex

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
« Reply #94 on: January 12, 2016, 09:41:20 PM »
Al is always willing to engage me endlessly with respect to the use of the word "Barry".  Perhaps that too is a matter of higher importance to Al than actual gun deaths.
What DW said.

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
« Reply #95 on: January 12, 2016, 10:26:31 PM »
"The media has been really vague about the demands he's making.  When I've investigated similar vagueness in the past, I've been surprised by how clear the actual positions of involved were.  At this point though, I have no idea"

Not hard to find. He's demanding that two ranchers be released from their 5 year prison terms for "Arson." A very harsh sentence given that the illegal act was unintentional, a fire started for legit purposes on the rancher's own land.

Quite frankly, I would be sympathetic to their armed but remote protest if they had not tried to make scriptural justification.  Guns and scripture, like guns and alcohol, make me uncomfortable.

D.W.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
« Reply #96 on: January 12, 2016, 10:38:56 PM »
Wasn't this whole thing plan B?  Haven't been following close but I thought the ranchers declined their assistance.  Then the locals (the ones the feds are unjustly stealing land from) asked them to take a hike as well. 

Theses guys seem to be (or are being framed as?) a group trying to make a scene / provoke a confrontation and any excuse will do; as long as uncle Sam is the bad guy.

AI Wessex

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
« Reply #97 on: January 13, 2016, 07:24:44 AM »
Quote
Quite frankly, I would be sympathetic to their armed but remote protest if they had not tried to make scriptural justification.  Guns and scripture, like guns and alcohol, make me uncomfortable.
What will it take for Christians to recognize the strain of extremism in their own ranks?  It's time for the BLM to move in and arrest them. 
Quote
Not hard to find. He's demanding that two ranchers be released from their 5 year prison terms for "Arson."
That's only the proximate cause, more accurately their excuse and insincere justification --- reminds me of invading Iraq to destroy their WMD.  They also want the government to relinquish control and abolish regulations they enforce over federal lands.  They have renamed the property, cut down fences, illegally accessed files on the computers in the office, and taken (aka stolen) the government vehicles.  This is usurpation and theft at a minimum, and if a shot is fired that injures anyone an insurrection.  As Pete points out, all done in the name of their religion.

FWIW, this is what the government claims the Hammond's did, so they're not victims of government overreach, even if the sentences seem harsh:
Quote
"The Hammonds also have ignited uncontrolled fires under cover of naturally occuring dry lightning storms which occur on the western slopes of the Steens Mountain in late summers," then-United States Attorney Dwight C. Holton wrote in the indictment. "For more than twenty years, Hammond family members have been responsible for multiple fires in the Steens Mountain area."

A jury convicted the pair of starting the 2001 Hardie-Hammond Fire that burned 139 acres of BLM land. Steven Hammond was also convicted of intentionally starting the 2006 Lower Bridge Creek Fire.
...
Supporters of the two men maintain the Hammonds started fires to destroy invasive species and protect their property by removing wildfire fuels, and that flames spread to public lands inadvertently.

But witnesses in the trial told a different story. The jury heard from three witnesses who were hunting in 2001 when they saw the Hammonds shoot over their heads to illegally slaughter a herd of deer, according to court documents. A short time later, the hunters testified, they had to abandon their camp because of a fire burning in the area.

A teenage relative of the Hammonds also testified during the trial that Steven Hammond gave him a box of matches and told him to drop lit matches on the ground to "light up the whole county on fire," Williams wrote.

Williams says photographs and testimony from the hunting guide proved the fires were set hours before Steven Hammond called the BLM to report he was about to conduct a burn of invasive species in the area.
« Last Edit: January 13, 2016, 07:30:54 AM by AI Wessex »

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
« Reply #98 on: January 13, 2016, 09:47:54 AM »
Quote
Quite frankly, I would be sympathetic to their armed but remote protest if they had not tried to make scriptural justification.  Guns and scripture, like guns and alcohol, make me uncomfortable.
What will it take for Christians to recognize the strain of extremism in their own ranks?  It's time for the BLM to move in and arrest them. 
Quote
Not hard to find. He's demanding that two ranchers be released from their 5 year prison terms for "Arson."
That's only the proximate cause, more accurately their excuse and insincere justification --- reminds me of invading Iraq to destroy their WMD.  They also want the government to relinquish control and abolish regulations they enforce over federal lands.  They have renamed the property, cut down fences, illegally accessed files on the computers in the office, and taken (aka stolen) the government vehicles.  This is usurpation and theft at a minimum, and if a shot is fired that injures anyone an insurrection.  As Pete points out, all done in the name of their religion.

FWIW, this is what the government claims the Hammond's did, so they're not victims of government overreach, even if the sentences seem harsh:

Please stop playing stupid, Al.

I already did recognize that they are religious extremists in spite of you repeatedly pretending I had said otherwise.

I sympathize with them because as you have conceded, the sentence of five years in prison is harsh.

Also, their generations of family business has been destroyed by a sudden change in the law. 

But you are simply being dishonest when you cast me as being sympathetic to them because of their religion.  Their citing religious scripture while waving around guns is precisely what most alienates me from their cause.

Unfortunately Al never has been able to deal with me except as his vicious little stereotype of Christians.
 
Here again, Al, is an example of how you hate us more than you fear ISIS.  For all their illiterate religious extremism, the Bunnies have staged their protest in an isolated place where the only persons likely to get hurt are them and whatever police are unlucky enough to follow your strikingly stupid bloodthirsty idea to storm their little Masada.

Anyone with more brains than gallstones realizes the smart thing to do is cut their power, let winter do their work, then arrest them for trespassing when they leave.

I'm shocked that you are so eager for unnecessary bloodshed to give weight to the false equivalency you are always trying to draw between Christianity and violent Islamism.  Please stop using this forum to incite mass shootings.

Oh, and I did not say that these brothers did anything "in the name of God.". I said they are religious extremists who misquote scripture for their purposes, just as you, Al Bundy Wessex, misquote me for your purposes.

As you see, DW, Al's the master baiter here.
[/quote]

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
« Reply #99 on: January 13, 2016, 09:50:25 AM »
Wasn't this whole thing plan B?  Haven't been following close but I thought the ranchers declined their assistance.  Then the locals (the ones the feds are unjustly stealing land from) asked them to take a hike as well. 

Theses guys seem to be (or are being framed as?) a group trying to make a scene / provoke a confrontation and any excuse will do; as long as uncle Sam is the bad guy.

What you describe is my understanding as well. I think they want a confrontation with the feds.  Al keeps pretending I denied they are religious fanatics, but I have said they are. They seem to be seeking martyrdom.  But fortunately this specific band of fanatics seem to be taking serious the Christian adage against shedding innocent blood. No hostages. Remote location.
And Al was just drooling over the prospect of giving them the bloody death that they seek.  Just one more example of the cynical nihilistic left collaborating with the lunatic right.

(Some dishonest antichristian jackass will no doubt start beating that I claimed that Christians never take innocent life.  But that's not what I said.  I said this Ammon Bundy group seems to have taken care not to endanger innocents.)

The Hammond group seems to have endangered innocent life by carelessly setting those fires. No idea if they cited Christian scripture, so don't know how that fits into Al Wessex' tedious and tireless vendetta against Christians.


« Last Edit: January 13, 2016, 10:02:06 AM by Pete at Home »