*Are Guns Bad?*

[daveman]

It figures something as elemental to the race as 'the common good' would require a definition for Conservatives.

Put out the fire, cure the disease, drain the swamp, pave the road, teach the children, feed the hungry.

These actions are for the common good and society thinks so.

Do you need a gun to convince someone to do these things? If reason fails (and a quick glance toward the Tea Party types shows that reason fails) do we need to enforce these things by the barrel of a gun?

Your failure is where you think "common good" is self-evident.

Put out the fire, cure the disease, drain the swamp, pave the road, teach the children, feed the hungry. Aren't these things obviously for the common good?

In broad bumper sticker and protest sign terms, yes. Once you get into specifics, there is room for debate.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Oh, it's all-about "barrel"-envy, huh????
​

Stop wasting my time.
Oh wait! -I- have control over that.​

Hmmmmmmm.....

I didn't think you'd PUNK-OUT that quickly.

I'm guessin' you're not "carrying", presently.​

 

[Nosmo King]

Your failure is where you think "common good" is self-evident.

Put out the fire, cure the disease, drain the swamp, pave the road, teach the children, feed the hungry. Aren't these things obviously for the common good?

In broad bumper sticker and protest sign terms, yes. Once you get into specifics, there is room for debate.

Debate. Not coercion by gunpoint.

Once force is accepted as a solution, there is no more freedom.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Now you're talking about my will. Which is it?

No. I'm not.
Let me help you:
Context:
Discourse that surrounds a language unit and helps to determine its interpretation.

The CONTEXT of the statement, clear to anyone who has even a rudimentary understading of the languagse, is found in the reason for having guns in the first place. Thus, the people that might need to use guns are those acting in their own self-defense against someone that would harm them. The people that might cause that harm can only be stopped in their actions through reason, or, if that fails, force.

You either do not understand this because you do not want to understand it, or because you cannot understand it -- either way, the failure to meaningfully communicate anything of value is yours.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Once force is accepted as a solution, there is no more freedom.

Government acts -entirely- through force or the threat thereof.
Casting a vote is an excercise of force.
If you're right, then the existence of government, even a democratic one, necessitates that there is no more freedom.
So... you must be an anarchist. Who would have guessed?

 

[daveman]

And what do you think Grumman or Lockheed or Boeing thinks when your confiscated at the point of a gun money lands on their bottom lines? Maybe you don't mind paying off the military industrial complex. It's just food on the school lunch table that makes you see red.

And apparently it's military expenditures that make you see red.

Obviously, a military force is part of the "common good". You seem to disagree.

No, I'm for defense spending. But I think defense spending is bloated, full of corruption and incompetence and should be as vulnerable to cuts as spending for hungry children and unpaved roads.

I don't think many Conservatives agree with me on that. They tell me so everyday.

Ahhh. Then you see once you get past the bumper sticker mentality, there are areas for disagreement on what constitutes the "common good".

 

[daveman]

Put out the fire, cure the disease, drain the swamp, pave the road, teach the children, feed the hungry. Aren't these things obviously for the common good?

In broad bumper sticker and protest sign terms, yes. Once you get into specifics, there is room for debate.

Debate. Not coercion by gunpoint.

Once force is accepted as a solution, there is no more freedom.

How do you expect people to accept your version of the common good if you can't get them to agree by debate?

Obamacare was forced on those who disagreed with it by coercion backed up with the threat of force. Therefore, you must agree there is no freedom on that issue.

 

[Nosmo King]

Now you're talking about my will. Which is it?

No. I'm not.
Let me help you:
Context:
Discourse that surrounds a language unit and helps to determine its interpretation.

The CONTEXT of the statement, clear to anyone who has even a rudimentary understading of the languagse, is found in the reason for having guns in the first place. Thus, the people that might need to use guns are those acting in their own self-defense against someone that would harm them. The people that might cause that harm can only be stopped in their actions through reason, or, if that fails, force.

You either do not understand this because you do not want to understand it, or because you cannot understand it -- either way, the failure to meaningfully communicate anything of value is yours.

eliminate the gun. Now the argument is about human will and the dominance of the strong. Since human nature cannot be changed, the problematic element is the gun.

 

[Nosmo King]

In broad bumper sticker and protest sign terms, yes. Once you get into specifics, there is room for debate.

Debate. Not coercion by gunpoint.

Once force is accepted as a solution, there is no more freedom.

How do you expect people to accept your version of the common good if you can't get them to agree by debate?

Obamacare was forced on those who disagreed with it by coercion backed up with the threat of force. Therefore, you must agree there is no freedom on that issue.

All laws can be argued thus. And yet law, the rule of law, is what makes civilizations great.

 

[M14 Shooter]

No. I'm not.
Let me help you:
Context:
Discourse that surrounds a language unit and helps to determine its interpretation.

The CONTEXT of the statement, clear to anyone who has even a rudimentary understading of the languagse, is found in the reason for having guns in the first place. Thus, the people that might need to use guns are those acting in their own self-defense against someone that would harm them. The people that might cause that harm can only be stopped in their actions through reason, or, if that fails, force.

You either do not understand this because you do not want to understand it, or because you cannot understand it -- either way, the failure to meaningfully communicate anything of value is yours.

eliminate the gun.

The ENTIRE TOPIC is about the argument as to why we have guns..
"Eliminate the gun" and the conversation disappears.

Meanehile, you have yet to address the 'reason or force' statement in the context it was made.
Let us know when you can to that.

 

[daveman]

Debate. Not coercion by gunpoint.

Once force is accepted as a solution, there is no more freedom.

How do you expect people to accept your version of the common good if you can't get them to agree by debate?

Obamacare was forced on those who disagreed with it by coercion backed up with the threat of force. Therefore, you must agree there is no freedom on that issue.

All laws can be argued thus. And yet law, the rule of law, is what makes civilizations great.

Indeed. So your earlier contention:

Arguing guns are necessary for civilization is absurd considering how many times in your life or mine we have been forced by gunpoint to do anything.

The argument is a thin veneer of rationalization for those incapable of settling disputes any other way, including by the power of their own limited wits.​

...is pretty much shot out of the saddle now, no pun intended.

The rule of law has power solely due to the threat of the gun.

 

[daveman]

Now you're talking about my will. Which is it?

No. I'm not.
Let me help you:
Context:
Discourse that surrounds a language unit and helps to determine its interpretation.

The CONTEXT of the statement, clear to anyone who has even a rudimentary understading of the languagse, is found in the reason for having guns in the first place. Thus, the people that might need to use guns are those acting in their own self-defense against someone that would harm them. The people that might cause that harm can only be stopped in their actions through reason, or, if that fails, force.

You either do not understand this because you do not want to understand it, or because you cannot understand it -- either way, the failure to meaningfully communicate anything of value is yours.

eliminate the gun. Now the argument is about human will and the dominance of the strong. Since human nature cannot be changed, the problematic element is the gun.

If you eliminate the gun, the rule of law is rendered powerless.

 

[M14 Shooter]

All laws can be argued thus. And yet law, the rule of law, is what makes civilizations great.

The "rule of law" is nothing but force, or the threat thereof.
Under your argument, "the rule of law" means there is no freedom.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Are you a good gun,or a bad gun

 

[M14 Shooter]

Are you a good gun,or a bad gun

I am an AWESOME gun!
And I have AWESOME guns!

 

[chesswarsnow]

Sorry bout that,


1. So is context, more or less why some people have to resort to use a gun and stop the advisary?
2. And does context effect the outcome, always?
3. In the use or not use of a gun, or guns.


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

 

[chesswarsnow]

Sorry bout that,


1. Whats the most common context that you would usually need to see so as to force you into the use of a gun or guns?


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

 

[daveman]

Sorry bout that,


1. Whats the most common context that you would usually need to see so as to force you into the use of a gun or guns?


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.

 

[M14 Shooter]

When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.

Indeed.
Anyone not prepared to use deadly force whenever the situation calls for it is, at best, socially irresponsible.

 

[daveman]

When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.

Indeed.
Anyone not prepared to use deadly force whenever the situation calls for it is, at best, socially irresponsible.

And at worst, dead.