CDZ How partisan politics narrows your thinking

[JoeB131]

What if instead of guns, it was books? Just because you deem one scenario "reasonable", according to your own subjective standard, doesn't change the principle.

When you can mow down a school full of kids with a book, we can make that comparison.

Government is coming to confiscate private property from innocent, responsible adults (you must admit that at least some of them are).

I admit nothing of the sort. Point is, the government confiscates private property all the time for the public good.

At what point does this become intolerable enough to warrant firing upon a trespasser and aggressor?

If they are acting within the confines of laws that the majority agreed upon, then, um, no. It's never justified.

What is your line in the sand, personally? At what point would you fire upon a government agent?

If he was coming to kill me or my family for no good reason. Killing over stuff, that's just crazy. But this is exactly what the gun nuts think we should all do. They want guns so they can shoots them some burglars.

 

[usmbguest5318]

What if instead of guns, it was books? Just because you deem one scenario "reasonable", according to your own subjective standard, doesn't change the principle.

When you can mow down a school full of kids with a book, we can make that comparison.

Government is coming to confiscate private property from innocent, responsible adults (you must admit that at least some of them are).

I admit nothing of the sort. Point is, the government confiscates private property all the time for the public good.

At what point does this become intolerable enough to warrant firing upon a trespasser and aggressor?

If they are acting within the confines of laws that the majority agreed upon, then, um, no. It's never justified.

What is your line in the sand, personally? At what point would you fire upon a government agent?

If he was coming to kill me or my family for no good reason. Killing over stuff, that's just crazy. But this is exactly what the gun nuts think we should all do. They want guns so they can shoots them some burglars.

When you can mow down a school full of kids with a book, we can make that comparison.

What!?! Seriously? You'd want to defer developing and agreeing on a principle, a coherent set of philosophical stances, until "mow[ed] down" be "a school full of kids," be it with books, bludgeons or bullets? Is your notion of moral or rational, or even merely efficacious, governance that reactionary?

The point of having a coherent set of agreed upon principles is two fold: (1) to facilitate anticipating heinous events and preempting them and (2) to facilitate responding with effective alacrity when unforeseen heinous events occur.

Have I misconstrued the rhetorical point of your question? I may have, for I'm still of the mind that you and Brian are in philosophical agreement about what be the existential status of one who violates a governmental law, yet he's expounding on a strategic/philosophical/principle level and you're expounding on a tactical/pragmatic level. I keep looking for a post in which one of you connects the strategy and the tactics, or at least attempts to either articulate and/or reconcile the nuances that are producing the tactical-level disparity between you.

Don't get me wrong, I may well differ with Brian on a tactical level too. I don't know. He and I have, to date, only discussed things at a strategic/philosophical level, and that with regard to the individual, not society as a whole. It seems like the discussion you're having with him is much the same as the one he and I had.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

What if instead of guns, it was books? Just because you deem one scenario "reasonable", according to your own subjective standard, doesn't change the principle.

When you can mow down a school full of kids with a book, we can make that comparison.

Government is coming to confiscate private property from innocent, responsible adults (you must admit that at least some of them are).

I admit nothing of the sort. Point is, the government confiscates private property all the time for the public good.

At what point does this become intolerable enough to warrant firing upon a trespasser and aggressor?

If they are acting within the confines of laws that the majority agreed upon, then, um, no. It's never justified.

What is your line in the sand, personally? At what point would you fire upon a government agent?

If he was coming to kill me or my family for no good reason. Killing over stuff, that's just crazy. But this is exactly what the gun nuts think we should all do. They want guns so they can shoots them some burglars.

So here we are again... You say, "If they are acting within the confines of laws that the majority agreed upon, then, um, no. [Firing upon government agents is] never justified." Can't you see that this means you condone allowing nazis to come drag Jewish people out of your home? This is just a logical fact. I know you don't that what the Nazi's did was Ok, which means your statement (and thus your position) is inherently contradictory. You are harboring two conflicting beliefs.

People who want combat rifles do not want them for burglars - that's what pistols and shotguns are for - they want them for the only purpose they are suited for: to defend against a tyrannical government. They don't care about law and morality. Stalin's Russia and Mao's China had Constitutions too. It doesn't matter. They do what they want. Haven't you seen it enough times to realize that? Are you going to tell me that "it can't happen here", as if anyone ever thinks that it can happen before it does?

And you will not concede that some of the people who own combat rifles are responsible people who have never harmed another human being (and are therefore innocent)? The fact that government does something (confiscate private property) is not an argument for the legitimacy of that action. When they storm into a non-violent person's home and arrest him for growing pot, it is not for the "public good".

Do you understand why the war on drugs exists? Do you really think it's to stop drugs? How can more cops and more laws stop drugs when drugs are rampant in the most tightly regulated places on the planet: maximum security prisons? How can the government not know that drug prohibition would lead to more crime, more violence, and not put a dent in drug use, when they saw what alcohol prohibition yielded just a few decades earlier? Of course they knew. They wanted the crime. They wanted the violence. It allows them to keep people scared, infringe on civil liberties, justify more taxation and a stronger police force, etc., etc., etc. It's a money and power grab. Nearly every law is. You think the public good is even a thought in these people's heads? You simply don't know who you're dealing with.

 

[usmbguest5318]

What if instead of guns, it was books? Just because you deem one scenario "reasonable", according to your own subjective standard, doesn't change the principle.

When you can mow down a school full of kids with a book, we can make that comparison.

Government is coming to confiscate private property from innocent, responsible adults (you must admit that at least some of them are).

I admit nothing of the sort. Point is, the government confiscates private property all the time for the public good.

At what point does this become intolerable enough to warrant firing upon a trespasser and aggressor?

If they are acting within the confines of laws that the majority agreed upon, then, um, no. It's never justified.

What is your line in the sand, personally? At what point would you fire upon a government agent?

If he was coming to kill me or my family for no good reason. Killing over stuff, that's just crazy. But this is exactly what the gun nuts think we should all do. They want guns so they can shoots them some burglars.

So here we are again... You say, "If they are acting within the confines of laws that the majority agreed upon, then, um, no. [Firing upon government agents is] never justified." Can't you see that this means you condone allowing nazis to come drag Jewish people out of your home? This is just a logical fact. I know you don't that what the Nazi's did was Ok, which means your statement (and thus your position) is inherently contradictory. You are harboring two conflicting beliefs.

People who want combat rifles do not want them for burglars - that's what pistols and shotguns are for - they want them for the only purpose they are suited for: to defend against a tyrannical government. They don't care about law and morality. Stalin's Russia and Mao's China had Constitutions too. It doesn't matter. They do what they want. Haven't you seen it enough times to realize that? Are you going to tell me that "it can't happen here", as if anyone ever thinks that it can happen before it does?

And you will not concede that some of the people who own combat rifles are responsible people who have never harmed another human being (and are therefore innocent)? The fact that government does something (confiscate private property) is not an argument for the legitimacy of that action. When they storm into a non-violent person's home and arrest him for growing pot, it is not for the "public good".

Do you understand why the war on drugs exists? Do you really think it's to stop drugs? How can more cops and more laws stop drugs when drugs are rampant in the most tightly regulated places on the planet: maximum security prisons? How can the government not know that drug prohibition would lead to more crime, more violence, and not put a dent in drug use, when they saw what alcohol prohibition yielded just a few decades earlier? Of course they knew. They wanted the crime. They wanted the violence. It allows them to keep people scared, infringe on civil liberties, justify more taxation and a stronger police force, etc., etc., etc. It's a money and power grab. Nearly every law is. You think the public good is even a thought in these people's heads? You simply don't know who you're dealing with.

So here we are again... You say, "If they are acting within the confines of laws that the majority agreed upon, then, um, no. [Firing upon government agents is] never justified." Can't you see that this means you condone allowing nazis to come drag Jewish people out of your home? This is just a logical fact.

 

[JoeB131]

Have I misconstrued the rhetorical point of your question? I may have, for

Guy, I'm mostly ignoring you. I'm not going down your rhetorical rabbit holes.

What!?! Seriously? You'd want to defer developing and agreeing on a principle, a coherent set of philosophical stances, until "mow[ed] down" be "a school full of kids," be it with books, bludgeons or bullets? Is your notion of moral or rational, or even merely efficacious, governance that reactionary?

Guy, simple enough definition. Nobody should have the ability to mow down a room full of schoolkids because 200 years ago, a bunch of slave-owners couldn't clearly write an amendment governing militias. Look, if Thomas Jefferson really believed in guns to defend yourself from rape or something, Sally Hemings would have had a gun and shot him.

So here we are again... You say, "If they are acting within the confines of laws that the majority agreed upon, then, um, no. [Firing upon government agents is] never justified." Can't you see that this means you condone allowing nazis to come drag Jewish people out of your home? This is just a logical fact. I know you don't that what the Nazi's did was Ok, which means your statement (and thus your position) is inherently contradictory. You are harboring two conflicting beliefs.

Again, the Nazis weren't democratically elected. Now, the reality... most Europeans had no problem with what was done to the Jews, at least not until after the war and they laid a big guilt trip on them

People who want combat rifles do not want them for burglars - that's what pistols and shotguns are for - they want them for the only purpose they are suited for: to defend against a tyrannical government. They don't care about law and morality. Stalin's Russia and Mao's China had Constitutions too. It doesn't matter. They do what they want. Haven't you seen it enough times to realize that? Are you going to tell me that "it can't happen here", as if anyone ever thinks that it can happen before it does?

Guy, I can't emphasize enough anyone who so idiotic that they think that they can fight the government with an automatic rifle.

The GOVERNMENT HAS TANKS. They have bombers. They have a whole bunch more firepower, and frankly, when they take out a crank with guns, their neighbors are usually cheering when they do it.

Just ask David Koresh. Oh, wait, you can't, he's dead.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Have I misconstrued the rhetorical point of your question? I may have, for

Guy, I'm mostly ignoring you. I'm not going down your rhetorical rabbit holes.

What!?! Seriously? You'd want to defer developing and agreeing on a principle, a coherent set of philosophical stances, until "mow[ed] down" be "a school full of kids," be it with books, bludgeons or bullets? Is your notion of moral or rational, or even merely efficacious, governance that reactionary?

Guy, simple enough definition. Nobody should have the ability to mow down a room full of schoolkids because 200 years ago, a bunch of slave-owners couldn't clearly write an amendment governing militias. Look, if Thomas Jefferson really believed in guns to defend yourself from rape or something, Sally Hemings would have had a gun and shot him.

So here we are again... You say, "If they are acting within the confines of laws that the majority agreed upon, then, um, no. [Firing upon government agents is] never justified." Can't you see that this means you condone allowing nazis to come drag Jewish people out of your home? This is just a logical fact. I know you don't that what the Nazi's did was Ok, which means your statement (and thus your position) is inherently contradictory. You are harboring two conflicting beliefs.

Again, the Nazis weren't democratically elected. Now, the reality... most Europeans had no problem with what was done to the Jews, at least not until after the war and they laid a big guilt trip on them

People who want combat rifles do not want them for burglars - that's what pistols and shotguns are for - they want them for the only purpose they are suited for: to defend against a tyrannical government. They don't care about law and morality. Stalin's Russia and Mao's China had Constitutions too. It doesn't matter. They do what they want. Haven't you seen it enough times to realize that? Are you going to tell me that "it can't happen here", as if anyone ever thinks that it can happen before it does?

Guy, I can't emphasize enough anyone who so idiotic that they think that they can fight the government with an automatic rifle.

The GOVERNMENT HAS TANKS. They have bombers. They have a whole bunch more firepower, and frankly, when they take out a crank with guns, their neighbors are usually cheering when they do it.

Just ask David Koresh. Oh, wait, you can't, he's dead.

Semi-automatic rifles.

Most of these rightwing nitwits harbor a pathetic Red Dawn fantasy.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

Again, the Nazis weren't democratically elected. Now, the reality... most Europeans had no problem with what was done to the Jews, at least not until after the war and they laid a big guilt trip on them

People who want combat rifles do not want them for burglars - that's what pistols and shotguns are for - they want them for the only purpose they are suited for: to defend against a tyrannical government. They don't care about law and morality. Stalin's Russia and Mao's China had Constitutions too. It doesn't matter. They do what they want. Haven't you seen it enough times to realize that? Are you going to tell me that "it can't happen here", as if anyone ever thinks that it can happen before it does?

Guy, I can't emphasize enough anyone who so idiotic that they think that they can fight the government with an automatic rifle.

The GOVERNMENT HAS TANKS. They have bombers. They have a whole bunch more firepower, and frankly, when they take out a crank with guns, their neighbors are usually cheering when they do it.

Just ask David Koresh. Oh, wait, you can't, he's dead.

Now you're making a distinction between how laws come into being, which changes the logical implications of your stance. If you want to say it's ok to fire on Nazis because their law is not the result of your preferred governmental process, then we're good.

But we can still use the example of the Fugitive Slave Law in America as an apt example. If I were living in the north, and a runaway slave was in my house, and government agents came to claim him, I would feel perfectly justified shooting them if they would not desist any other way. The immorality of human slavery trumps any governmental law, democratically derived or otherwise. Do you disagree?

As for 300,000,000 citizens taking on a governmental army of 2.5 million, I'm not convinced it's as hopeless as you suggest. Tanks are useless in certain environments, and those guys have to come out sometime. Sure you can bomb the citizens, but if they never surrender, what's the use? To paraphrase Gandhi, "they will have my dead body, but they will not have my compliance". Government is a band of thieves; they gain nothing by leveling the country. They have nothing against piles of bodies, but they don't want to utterly destroy the Goose laying the eggs. Plus, many of the police and military would not side with the government against the citizenry (they do take an oath, and some actually give a damn about it, like the members of the Oath Keepers organization).

And yes, some people cheer when a man like Koresh dies (though many do not), but only because they've allowed their mind to become so warped by propaganda and indoctrination that the word "freedom" has an alternate definition. They can't understand the true concept. You think Jefferson, Franklin, Paine, Henry, etc. would have cheered at such governmental action? I'm just trying to bring us back to this fundamental understanding.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

...I'm still of the mind that you and Brian are in philosophical agreement about what be the existential status of one who violates a governmental law, yet he's expounding on a strategic/philosophical/principle level and you're expounding on a tactical/pragmatic level. I keep looking for a post in which one of you connects the strategy and the tactics, or at least attempts to either articulate and/or reconcile the nuances that are producing the tactical-level disparity between you.

My position is that it is immoral and ineffective to disallow the citizenry to own combat rifles under any circumstances, but particularly while police and military still have them. Immoral, for reasons you can no doubt extrapolate from our previous discussion, and ineffective because the number of responsible gun owners far exceeds the number of mass shooters to such a degree that the latter is statistically negligible. That means the law primarily targets innocent people.

The arguments have all been made before, and are never addressed logically (they believe the words "dead children" answers for all). Obviously, law-abiding citizens are the only ones who would allow gun laws to prohibit them from owning a gun, and they (by definition) do not commit mass shootings. Mass shooters and other criminals have no regard for human life, no less law, and combat rifles will still be available via the black market, so they are unaffected by the law.

Most importantly, to believe that the high-level political proponents of gun laws are motivated by a desire to protect people is a perspective that borders on insanity. It's just as insane as believing they want drug laws to protect people. I really don't mean to be condescending, but this is a child's point of view. It demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of what our currently government is, who occupies those high-level positions, and what their goals and motivations are.

They, as they always do, opportunistically latch onto reactionary public sentiment to further their own agenda. That agenda is to make the population incapable of effective revolt. This tactic has been explicitly expressed and universally implemented by dominators throughout history, and to think that our "leaders" are any different just because they're "ours" is naive.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Have I misconstrued the rhetorical point of your question? I may have, for

Guy, I'm mostly ignoring you. I'm not going down your rhetorical rabbit holes.

What!?! Seriously? You'd want to defer developing and agreeing on a principle, a coherent set of philosophical stances, until "mow[ed] down" be "a school full of kids," be it with books, bludgeons or bullets? Is your notion of moral or rational, or even merely efficacious, governance that reactionary?

Guy, simple enough definition. Nobody should have the ability to mow down a room full of schoolkids because 200 years ago, a bunch of slave-owners couldn't clearly write an amendment governing militias. Look, if Thomas Jefferson really believed in guns to defend yourself from rape or something, Sally Hemings would have had a gun and shot him.

So here we are again... You say, "If they are acting within the confines of laws that the majority agreed upon, then, um, no. [Firing upon government agents is] never justified." Can't you see that this means you condone allowing nazis to come drag Jewish people out of your home? This is just a logical fact. I know you don't that what the Nazi's did was Ok, which means your statement (and thus your position) is inherently contradictory. You are harboring two conflicting beliefs.

Again, the Nazis weren't democratically elected. Now, the reality... most Europeans had no problem with what was done to the Jews, at least not until after the war and they laid a big guilt trip on them

People who want combat rifles do not want them for burglars - that's what pistols and shotguns are for - they want them for the only purpose they are suited for: to defend against a tyrannical government. They don't care about law and morality. Stalin's Russia and Mao's China had Constitutions too. It doesn't matter. They do what they want. Haven't you seen it enough times to realize that? Are you going to tell me that "it can't happen here", as if anyone ever thinks that it can happen before it does?

Guy, I can't emphasize enough anyone who so idiotic that they think that they can fight the government with an automatic rifle.

The GOVERNMENT HAS TANKS. They have bombers. They have a whole bunch more firepower, and frankly, when they take out a crank with guns, their neighbors are usually cheering when they do it.

Just ask David Koresh. Oh, wait, you can't, he's dead.

Nobody should have the ability to mow down a room full of schoolkids

I agree with that statement.

Even as I do, I realize that statement doesn't address the point

the Nazis weren't democratically elected.

You should probably review the German referendum of August 19, 1934.

• Adolf Hitler becomes president of Germany - Aug 19, 1934 - HISTORY.com
  "On this day in 1934, Adolf Hitler, already chancellor, is also elected president of Germany in an unprecedented consolidation of power in the short history of the republic."
  
• German Voters Approve Hitler as Führer
  "On Aug. 19, 1934, the German public voted 90 percent in favor of Chancellor Adolf Hitler becoming Führer und Reichskanzler ('leader and chancellor'), a new title created after the death of President Paul von Hindenburg earlier in the month."

The ballot stated and asked:

"The office of the President of the Reich is unified with the office of the Chancellor. Consequently all former powers of the President of the Reich are demised to the Führer and Chancellor of the Reich Adolf Hitler. He himself nominates his substitute."

Do you, German man and German woman, approve of this regulation provided by this Law?
(Source)​

To be sure, by Aug. 1934, Hitler had obtained the quietude of any would be opponents and the plebiscite's conduct was corrupt as hell -- e.g., brownshirts were stationed at polling places; stormtroopers escorted groups and clubs to voting places and pressed them to vote publicly; "only traitors enter here" banners were placed above the entrance to places where folks could vote in secret; and votes were fraudulently counted as "yes" votes -- but the fact remains that Germans did indeed vote to consolidate in Hitler the offices of president and chancellor.

Like it or not, there is a difference between a "democratic election" and a "democratic free election." The former is merely an election in which the citizenry votes and that is precisely what happened in Germany in August 1934. That vote made Hitler an absolute monarch (dictator); consequently, his fiats were the law and Hitler had full authority to make whatever he saw fit be the law.

I think what you're doing is equating/conflating the notions of "just law" and "the law." There's no question that the Nazi laws (Hitler's laws) that mandated/permitted the activities that coalesced to effect what we today call the Holocaust were unjust. There's also no question that those action, in Nazi Germany, were every bit as lawful as they were immoral.


In post 245, you wrote:

Most people don't care enough about government to really think aobut it all that much. USMB members do.

Maybe you have "really [thought] about" what you're arguing, but the nature and extent of your remarks in the line of discussion you've been following doesn't suggest you have done so thoroughly enough to defend it, which, if one's going to debate a matter, is what one must have done in preparation for the debate. (One doesn't have to think much about a philosophical model to ascribe gutterally to it, but one must do so to propone and argue for the model's legitimacy.) It's unfortunate that it seems you haven't because the point you're making is both just and defensible.

Brian is consistently focusing on the philosophical limit whereat codified law must give way to an individual's morality. Put another way, you're discussing what is clearly a discontinuous function as though it were a continuous one, and Brian is hammering on the points of discontinuity. [1] The axiom "there's a time and place for everything" is yet another way of putting it. Yet another term for it is "appeal to extremes," whis is not to be confused with reductio ad absurdum.

In the case of the discussion you've undertaken with Brian, the relevant concepts are those of limits and continuity. Applied to the principles/philosophy you and he are discussing, discontinuity is what happens when a philosophical model, a principle, if you will, stops working. The point at which that happens is the limit of the principle/philosophy, and the qualitative limit of a principle/philosophy is the point at which it becomes often irrational and always immoral.

I'm not going down your rhetorical rabbit holes.

Dude, there is no warren other than the one through which you're crawling. Take Brian's remark for what it does say, i.e., meet it head-on, rather than addressing it as something more than what it is. Your trying to make yours and Brian's remarks say something they do not is the rhetorical "rabbit hole." I'm not saying don't anticipate where Brian's line leads; I'm saying address where it is and then reclaim the initiative in the discussion. A good chess player accepts that he will lose material. A good debater, lo good strategists of all stripes, do the same. Thus when there really is no option but to cede a point, one cedes it, even if only to restore an overall position of balance, or as some might put it, comparable imbalance.

What Brian is doing is using reductio plus a contextual scope limitation to stifle you. You can grant the reductio within the narrow scope and move then to the "board section" where your position is stronger.

To wit, all you need do is accept his assertion that legal innocence is defined by adherence to governmental laws -- one can't deny that because that is what legal "non-guilt"/innocence is. That assertion doesn't have a damn thing to do with whether any given governmentally promulgated law is just, though it does tacitly acknowledge that there must be at least two types/systems of law: moral and legal. After acknowledging the two types of law, it becomes perfectly acceptable to that an individual's absolute [yet another math concept] innocence, particularly at the margin, depends not on compliance with governmental law...in other words, that there are instances in which breaking a governmental law is yet morally "lawful," that is, morally the correct thing to do. He'll agree to that because a moral person must, and he definitely considers himself such a person. [2]


From that point a host of topics arise, and each must be dealt with, some examples of which include [3]:

• Order vs. anarchy
• Individual vs. society
• Idealism vs. pragmatism
• Emotion vs. reason
• Relativism vs. objectivism (metaphysics)
• Prioritization and limits pertaining to the noble intents of each end of the above spectra
• Liberty and rights thereunto -- natural, personal, civic, political, economic, and national
• Positive and negative liberty

You earlier remarked that most people haven't given much thought to governance. You're right about that, so right about it, I suspect, that neither have most people bothered to read the works of individuals who have. [4]


Note:

1. The discussion you're having with Brian is fine example of why we study math and why it's important to be good at math, at least in terms of understanding its concepts. For few folks is it necessary to be good at performing mathematical operations and/or solving/devising equations. The point of learning math is to develop a simple, structured and coherent way of thinking about the relationships between/among concepts and applications that really don't have much at all to do with math.
   
   Continuity/Discontinuity Examples
   
   

   

   
   
   Continuous (left) and Discontinuous (right) functions
   
   

   

   
2. Brian directed the conversation down the same road that he took in the other thread/conversation to which I pointed you, the difference being that he started the other conversation there. You'd have had to expand the quote to find it, but the discursive "solution" for resolving the disagreement you perceive as existing between what he's saying and what you're saying is in that conversation.
   
   In this thread and in his exchange with you, for whatever reason, you let him "go there" rather than preempting or interdicting that line from the get go; thus here you are in an argy-bary over whether an individual's violating a legal dictum constitutes innocence for that individual.
   
   I don't know Brian, but I suspect he's a dogged individualist. The argument he's made regarding the legitimacy of secular law and moral law certainly alludes to his being such a person.​
3. Another skill math teaches, particularly with regard to the concept of limits, is that of rhetorical compartmentalization. While any given governance philosophy, thus systems built upon it, must resolve the conundrums presented by all those listed spectra/concepts, as Hobbes would surely attest, it's a daunting task to do so broadly.​
4. The baseline of works that attempt to unify morality/ethics and address them in the governance context the noted continuums being:​
   • On Liberty
   • Considerations of Representative Government
   • Leviathan
   • Second Treatise of Government
   • Reflections on the Revolution in France
   • The Communist Manifesto

​

 

[JoeB131]

Now you're making a distinction between how laws come into being, which changes the logical implications of your stance.

Not even a little bit, but okay.

But we can still use the example of the Fugitive Slave Law in America as an apt example. If I were living in the north, and a runaway slave was in my house, and government agents came to claim him, I would feel perfectly justified shooting them if they would not desist any other way. The immorality of human slavery trumps any governmental law, democratically derived or otherwise. Do you disagree?

Well, since America wasn't a "democracy' in 1850, it's a moot point.

Look, guy, you can try all the little bit of fun you want to try to come up with a situation where it's okay for nuts to have guns and shoot at government employees just doing their jobs, but it don't fly with me. YOu don't like a law, work to change it in the system. Because 'I think a law is unjust, so it's okay to shoot at the guys trying to enforce it' is just a crock.

As for 300,000,000 citizens taking on a governmental army of 2.5 million, I'm not convinced it's as hopeless as you suggest. Tanks are useless in certain environments, and those guys have to come out sometime. Sure you can bomb the citizens, but if they never surrender, what's the use?

again, guy, when the shooting starts, most people are going to be on the government's side.

Here's the thing. As much as you want to talk about Nazi Germany... here was the thing. Germans HAD guns. Lots of guns. And not a one of them shot at the Nazis no matter how bad it got. They gleefully turned over their Jewish neighbors, and then they fought for Hitler to the last little boy and old man. Finally, the Allies had to go door to door and confiscate those guns, and everyone was better off for it.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Off-Topic:

I'm classifying this post as off-topic because it's not clear to me that your remarks, thus my responses to them, are driven by partisanship. I don't perceive that either of us will alter our POV merely because a given political party, and its most vocal/visible adherents, shifts its stance on the matter herein discussed.

Accordingly, I think it important to warn readers that this post doesn't at all directly address the thread topic. I could surely connect this specific discussion to that of the relationship between one's stances, devotion to party and myopic thinking, but I doubt I will in fact do so.​

...I'm still of the mind that you and Brian are in philosophical agreement about what be the existential status of one who violates a governmental law, yet he's expounding on a strategic/philosophical/principle level and you're expounding on a tactical/pragmatic level. I keep looking for a post in which one of you connects the strategy and the tactics, or at least attempts to either articulate and/or reconcile the nuances that are producing the tactical-level disparity between you.

My position is that it is immoral and ineffective to disallow the citizenry to own combat rifles under any circumstances, but particularly while police and military still have them. Immoral, for reasons you can no doubt extrapolate from our previous discussion, and ineffective because the number of responsible gun owners far exceeds the number of mass shooters to such a degree that the latter is statistically negligible. That means the law primarily targets innocent people.

The arguments have all been made before, and are never addressed logically (they believe the words "dead children" answers for all). Obviously, law-abiding citizens are the only ones who would allow gun laws to prohibit them from owning a gun, and they (by definition) do not commit mass shootings. Mass shooters and other criminals have no regard for human life, no less law, and combat rifles will still be available via the black market, so they are unaffected by the law.

Most importantly, to believe that the high-level political proponents of gun laws are motivated by a desire to protect people is a perspective that borders on insanity. It's just as insane as believing they want drug laws to protect people. I really don't mean to be condescending, but this is a child's point of view. It demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of what our currently government is, who occupies those high-level positions, and what their goals and motivations are.

They, as they always do, opportunistically latch onto reactionary public sentiment to further their own agenda. That agenda is to make the population incapable of effective revolt. This tactic has been explicitly expressed and universally implemented by dominators throughout history, and to think that our "leaders" are any different just because they're "ours" is naive.

My position is that it is immoral and ineffective to disallow the citizenry to own combat rifles under any circumstances, but particularly while police and military still have them....[for to do so is to make] the population incapable of effective revolt.

and

Obviously, law-abiding citizens are the only ones who would allow gun laws to prohibit them from owning a gun, and they (by definition) do not commit mass shootings. Mass shooters and other criminals have no regard for human life, no less law, and combat rifles will still be available via the black market, so they are unaffected by the law.

Let me set three things straight from the start:

• Mass shooter, single shooter...makes no difference to me. If one unlawfully uses a firearm, one falls into the population of individuals whose firearm-related comportment I deem unacceptable and thus worthy of attempting to alter by denying one the instrument of one's unacceptable behavior as well as or instead of altering one's mindset.
• I define "unlawful" use of a firearm as shooting another human being who doesn't pose an imminent threat one's status of being alive. Kill the person shot, injure the person shot...both're all unlawful to me.
• I have no idea what "combat rifle" means to you. I know what it means to me, but that doesn't do me any good for comprehending your remarks as you mean them. I'm damn sure not putting my definition on your term. (I checked the WWW for a universally accepted definition; I didn't find one. Instead, I found quite a few, some of which don't refer to an object, some of which are rather nuanced and some not so nuanced, and there was some overlap among the definitions/descriptions.) So you tell me what it means to you, and if I don't find it precise enough to work with, I'll ask for clarification.

While I can accede to a measure of the immorality argument, I cannot at all accept your assertion of infectivity. I will not accept the latter notion because what is and isn't effective depends entirely on what is one's goal. My goal for any gun control legislation proposal I'd support is that of reducing unlawful gun uses.

Moreover, effectiveness is described/defined by a range; thus if the denial stops even one unlawful gun use, it's effective in some regard. Obviously, the more such uses stopped, the more effective.

Dissuasion is another quality described/defined by a range. Accordingly, there will be some folks who would, absent a prohibition, obtain a firearm and someday use it unlawfully, but in the presence of a fitting prohibition, they will (1) have no handy means of doing so and (2) be unwilling to go to extraordinary (unlawful) means to do so. The Las Vegas shooter is one such individual. So too is the Alexandria shooter. So too is every other shooter who were law abiding citizens for decades, until they unlawfully used their legally obtained firearm. For such persons, their lifelong behavior pattern of living within the law's limits strongly suggests they would not have pursued extraordinary/unlawful measures to violate a law that prohibited their obtaining the weapons they used unlawfully.

Might they have used a different weapon to do their dastardly deed? Maybe, but in some of those instances, inasmuch as the nature of the firearm they used played a role in the measure of death/injury they inflicted, it's reasonable to expect that those unlawful firearm users would yet have inflicted less death/injury. Insofar as less death/injury is the goal, I'm good with that. (continued in the next section)

ineffective because the number of responsible gun owners far exceeds the number of mass shooters to such a degree that the latter is statistically negligible.

and

Obviously, law-abiding citizens are the only ones who would allow gun laws to prohibit them from owning a gun, and they (by definition) do not commit mass shootings. Mass shooters and other criminals have no regard for human life, no less law, and combat rifles will still be available via the black market, so they are unaffected by the law.

To be sure, there will be some quantity of individuals for whom no law will impede their obtaining a gun and, in turn, using it unlawfully. That said, there will too be some quantity of individuals for whom simple prohibitions, of the sort that often are proposed, will be sufficient to deter them from obtaining a gun they would in turn use unlawfully.

• How many individuals in the latter group are enough to make the control measure "worth it?" For me, something in single digits would do it. More than that is "gravy" as far as I'm concerned.
• How many individuals' lives and/or existential life status/condition would need to remain unaltered in the wake of a control measure for me to deem the measure "worth it?" Again, single digits. More than that is "gravy" as far as I'm concerned.

That means the law primarily targets innocent people.

and

Obviously, law-abiding citizens are the only ones who would allow gun laws to prohibit them from owning a gun, and they (by definition) do not commit mass shootings. Mass shooters and other criminals have no regard for human life, no less law, and combat rifles will still be available via the black market, so they are unaffected by the law.

Well, you can call it "targets" if you want, but the reality is that verb has a connotation of deliberacy that nobody intends. That said, I won't deny that the greatest quantity of individuals affected by a gun control measure will be people who would responsibly and forever without exception lawfully use and maintain whatever firearms they own and/or possess.

[High-level political proponents of gun laws], as they always do, opportunistically latch onto reactionary public sentiment to further their own agenda. That agenda is to make the population incapable of effective revolt. This tactic has been explicitly expressed and universally implemented by dominators throughout history, and to think that our "leaders" are any different just because they're "ours" is naive.

Note:

I'm not sure exactly what "high-level political proponents of gun laws" means. I've taken it to mean elected office holders and department/agency/bureau heads at federal and state levels who advocate for gun control laws.​

I wouldn't hazard speculation on what motivates those individuals as go gun control measures or the people/entities affected by them. Neither would I posit what be any such individual's "agenda" with regard to the nature of the relationship between the government and the governed and the capacities each has with regard to orchestrating and limiting the other's actions, privileges and liberties.

Even as I won't hazard such a speculation, the agenda you ascribe to them remains, at this point in our conversation, counterfactual. I'm certainly not going to embrace an anti-gun control stance based in any way on an argument that says citizens must have guns "just in case high-level political proponents of gun laws" aim to "make the population incapable of effective revolt." Also, I'm not going to accept that because some other "high-level political proponents of gun laws" who functioned within a sovereignty having a materially different governing/political environment than the U.S. does, there be due to believe

[High-level political proponents of gun laws], as they always do, opportunistically latch onto reactionary public sentiment to further their own agenda. That agenda is to make the population incapable of effective revolt. This tactic has been explicitly expressed and universally implemented by dominators throughout history, and to think that our "leaders" are any different just because they're "ours" is naive.

Who said anything about thinking so "because they're ours?"

• If "ours" refers to U.S. leaders' status as yours and my countrymen, I haven't even implied any "guilt by association" as that, and it is I to whom you replied using that qualifier. Perhaps you had in mind someone else's comments?
• If "ours" refers to our political and social culture/system in which "high-level political proponents of gun laws" function, well, of course, that is a reason to think they may behave differently than have other similarly "enthroned" leaders. They, like everyone, are products of the environment in which they are raised and in the U.S., save perhaps for a disaffected minority of the population, concerns over mass revolt being nigh enough to warrant denying people guns are atypical.
  
  For whatever one may think about elites (leaders, their benefactors, aides, abettors, and elite disciples) -- be they political, economic or social -- one thing elites know is that their fortunes are inextricably tied to those of non-elites who greatly outnumber elites; thus keeping non-elites content, or at least content enough that they don't take to armed revolt, is critical. The U.S. cultural norm that's been inculcated for centuries -- colonial North America and later the U.S., was, after all, conquered and then founded primarily as a place for achieving economic satisfaction, though religious independence too was a factor -- is to effect contentment among the masses via concessions and policies that produce among them economic satisfaction.
  
  The rationale being that because the U.S. is a monetarily driven society, if the masses have enough coin in their pockets to relatively effortlessly do most of what they want need to do, they won't have a conniption and revolt, hence tax cuts, welfare, consumer protection regulations, civil rights laws, labor laws, etc. Quite frankly, insofar as the nation's non-elites didn't en masse undertake armed revolt during the Depression, whatever be the limit at which they would do, that wasn't it, and we're nowhere near their doing so now.
  
  On the other hand, we do right now face a problem with people unlawfully using firearms. Our political and social culture/system implores our leaders to resolve that problem. If doing so entails curtailing access to "combat rifles" without curtailing economic satisfaction, armed revolt en masse is, IMO, likely to be abated.

[High-level political proponents of gun laws], as they always do, opportunistically latch onto reactionary public sentiment to further their own agenda. That agenda is to make the population incapable of effective revolt. This tactic has been explicitly expressed and universally implemented by dominators throughout history, and to think that our "leaders" are any different just because they're "ours" is naive.

I'm not going to deny the past behavioral patterns of tyrants and despots, and neither am I going to declare we cannot or won't someday find ourselves governed by tyrants/despots. I will say that's a bridge to cross when we get there. You may see us as being near the bridge, so to speak, but I don't. I think most people don't.

Quite simply, the fact that a leader or group thereof denies the polity one right among many the polity treasures does not at all make the leader or group a despot/tyrant. Every one of us has at various times been denied a right/privilege we "really wanted," and yet here the overwhelming majority of us are none the worse off. The right to possess "combat rifles" is no different than any other thing one once might have wanted/demanded and that one didn't receive or retain. Throwing a tantrum over "combat rifle" possession ability is, to my mind, puerile.

My position is that it is immoral and ineffective to disallow the citizenry to own combat rifles under any circumstances....[for to do so is to make] the population incapable of effective revolt.

• What, in your mind, is "effective revolt?"
• What, in your mind, does an "effective revolt" achieve as compared with an "ineffective revolt?"
• What, in your mind, about an "effective revolt" makes "combat rifles" a necessity?

 

[usmbguest5318]

Off-Topic:

I'm classifying this post as off-topic because it's not clear to me that your remarks, thus my responses to them, are driven by partisanship. I don't perceive that either of us will alter our POV merely because a given political party, and its most vocal/visible adherents, shifts its stance on the matter herein discussed.

Accordingly, I think it important to warn readers that this post doesn't at all directly address the thread topic. I could surely connect this specific discussion to that of the relationship between one's stances, devotion to party and myopic thinking, but I doubt I will in fact do so.​

...I'm still of the mind that you and Brian are in philosophical agreement about what be the existential status of one who violates a governmental law, yet he's expounding on a strategic/philosophical/principle level and you're expounding on a tactical/pragmatic level. I keep looking for a post in which one of you connects the strategy and the tactics, or at least attempts to either articulate and/or reconcile the nuances that are producing the tactical-level disparity between you.

My position is that it is immoral and ineffective to disallow the citizenry to own combat rifles under any circumstances, but particularly while police and military still have them. Immoral, for reasons you can no doubt extrapolate from our previous discussion, and ineffective because the number of responsible gun owners far exceeds the number of mass shooters to such a degree that the latter is statistically negligible. That means the law primarily targets innocent people.

The arguments have all been made before, and are never addressed logically (they believe the words "dead children" answers for all). Obviously, law-abiding citizens are the only ones who would allow gun laws to prohibit them from owning a gun, and they (by definition) do not commit mass shootings. Mass shooters and other criminals have no regard for human life, no less law, and combat rifles will still be available via the black market, so they are unaffected by the law.

Most importantly, to believe that the high-level political proponents of gun laws are motivated by a desire to protect people is a perspective that borders on insanity. It's just as insane as believing they want drug laws to protect people. I really don't mean to be condescending, but this is a child's point of view. It demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of what our currently government is, who occupies those high-level positions, and what their goals and motivations are.

They, as they always do, opportunistically latch onto reactionary public sentiment to further their own agenda. That agenda is to make the population incapable of effective revolt. This tactic has been explicitly expressed and universally implemented by dominators throughout history, and to think that our "leaders" are any different just because they're "ours" is naive.

My position is that it is immoral and ineffective to disallow the citizenry to own combat rifles under any circumstances, but particularly while police and military still have them....[for to do so is to make] the population incapable of effective revolt.

and

Obviously, law-abiding citizens are the only ones who would allow gun laws to prohibit them from owning a gun, and they (by definition) do not commit mass shootings. Mass shooters and other criminals have no regard for human life, no less law, and combat rifles will still be available via the black market, so they are unaffected by the law.

Let me set three things straight from the start:

• Mass shooter, single shooter...makes no difference to me. If one unlawfully uses a firearm, one falls into the population of individuals whose firearm-related comportment I deem unacceptable and thus worthy of attempting to alter by denying one the instrument of one's unacceptable behavior as well as or instead of altering one's mindset.
• I define "unlawful" use of a firearm as shooting another human being who doesn't pose an imminent threat one's status of being alive. Kill the person shot, injure the person shot...both're all unlawful to me.
• I have no idea what "combat rifle" means to you. I know what it means to me, but that doesn't do me any good for comprehending your remarks as you mean them. I'm damn sure not putting my definition on your term. (I checked the WWW for a universally accepted definition; I didn't find one. Instead, I found quite a few, some of which don't refer to an object, some of which are rather nuanced and some not so nuanced, and there was some overlap among the definitions/descriptions.) So you tell me what it means to you, and if I don't find it precise enough to work with, I'll ask for clarification.

While I can accede to a measure of the immorality argument, I cannot at all accept your assertion of infectivity. I will not accept the latter notion because what is and isn't effective depends entirely on what is one's goal. My goal for any gun control legislation proposal I'd support is that of reducing unlawful gun uses.

Moreover, effectiveness is described/defined by a range; thus if the denial stops even one unlawful gun use, it's effective in some regard. Obviously, the more such uses stopped, the more effective.

Dissuasion is another quality described/defined by a range. Accordingly, there will be some folks who would, absent a prohibition, obtain a firearm and someday use it unlawfully, but in the presence of a fitting prohibition, they will (1) have no handy means of doing so and (2) be unwilling to go to extraordinary (unlawful) means to do so. The Las Vegas shooter is one such individual. So too is the Alexandria shooter. So too is every other shooter who were law abiding citizens for decades, until they unlawfully used their legally obtained firearm. For such persons, their lifelong behavior pattern of living within the law's limits strongly suggests they would not have pursued extraordinary/unlawful measures to violate a law that prohibited their obtaining the weapons they used unlawfully.

Might they have used a different weapon to do their dastardly deed? Maybe, but in some of those instances, inasmuch as the nature of the firearm they used played a role in the measure of death/injury they inflicted, it's reasonable to expect that those unlawful firearm users would yet have inflicted less death/injury. Insofar as less death/injury is the goal, I'm good with that. (continued in the next section)

ineffective because the number of responsible gun owners far exceeds the number of mass shooters to such a degree that the latter is statistically negligible.

and

Obviously, law-abiding citizens are the only ones who would allow gun laws to prohibit them from owning a gun, and they (by definition) do not commit mass shootings. Mass shooters and other criminals have no regard for human life, no less law, and combat rifles will still be available via the black market, so they are unaffected by the law.

To be sure, there will be some quantity of individuals for whom no law will impede their obtaining a gun and, in turn, using it unlawfully. That said, there will too be some quantity of individuals for whom simple prohibitions, of the sort that often are proposed, will be sufficient to deter them from obtaining a gun they would in turn use unlawfully.

• How many individuals in the latter group are enough to make the control measure "worth it?" For me, something in single digits would do it. More than that is "gravy" as far as I'm concerned.
• How many individuals' lives and/or existential life status/condition would need to remain unaltered in the wake of a control measure for me to deem the measure "worth it?" Again, single digits. More than that is "gravy" as far as I'm concerned.

That means the law primarily targets innocent people.

and

Obviously, law-abiding citizens are the only ones who would allow gun laws to prohibit them from owning a gun, and they (by definition) do not commit mass shootings. Mass shooters and other criminals have no regard for human life, no less law, and combat rifles will still be available via the black market, so they are unaffected by the law.

Well, you can call it "targets" if you want, but the reality is that verb has a connotation of deliberacy that nobody intends. That said, I won't deny that the greatest quantity of individuals affected by a gun control measure will be people who would responsibly and forever without exception lawfully use and maintain whatever firearms they own and/or possess.

[High-level political proponents of gun laws], as they always do, opportunistically latch onto reactionary public sentiment to further their own agenda. That agenda is to make the population incapable of effective revolt. This tactic has been explicitly expressed and universally implemented by dominators throughout history, and to think that our "leaders" are any different just because they're "ours" is naive.

Note:

I'm not sure exactly what "high-level political proponents of gun laws" means. I've taken it to mean elected office holders and department/agency/bureau heads at federal and state levels who advocate for gun control laws.​

I wouldn't hazard speculation on what motivates those individuals as go gun control measures or the people/entities affected by them. Neither would I posit what be any such individual's "agenda" with regard to the nature of the relationship between the government and the governed and the capacities each has with regard to orchestrating and limiting the other's actions, privileges and liberties.


Even as I won't hazard such a speculation, the agenda you ascribe to them remains, at this point in our conversation, counterfactual. I'm certainly not going to embrace an anti-gun control stance based in any way on an argument that says citizens must have guns "just in case high-level political proponents of gun laws" aim to "make the population incapable of effective revolt." Also, I'm not going to accept that because some other "high-level political proponents of gun laws" who functioned within a sovereignty having a materially different governing/political environment than the U.S. does, there be due to believe

[High-level political proponents of gun laws], as they always do, opportunistically latch onto reactionary public sentiment to further their own agenda. That agenda is to make the population incapable of effective revolt. This tactic has been explicitly expressed and universally implemented by dominators throughout history, and to think that our "leaders" are any different just because they're "ours" is naive.

Who said anything about thinking so "because they're ours?"

• If "ours" refers to U.S. leaders' status as yours and my countrymen, I haven't even implied any "guilt by association" as that, and it is I to whom you replied using that qualifier. Perhaps you had in mind someone else's comments?
• If "ours" refers to our political and social culture/system in which "high-level political proponents of gun laws" function, well, of course, that is a reason to think they may behave differently than have other similarly "enthroned" leaders. They, like everyone, are products of the environment in which they are raised and in the U.S., save perhaps for a disaffected minority of the population, concerns over mass revolt being nigh enough to warrant denying people guns are atypical.
  
  For whatever one may think about elites (leaders, their benefactors, aides, abettors, and elite disciples) -- be they political, economic or social -- one thing elites know is that their fortunes are inextricably tied to those of non-elites who greatly outnumber elites; thus keeping non-elites content, or at least content enough that they don't take to armed revolt, is critical. The U.S. cultural norm that's been inculcated for centuries -- colonial North America and later the U.S., was, after all, conquered and then founded primarily as a place for achieving economic satisfaction, though religious independence too was a factor -- is to effect contentment among the masses via concessions and policies that produce among them economic satisfaction.
  
  The rationale being that because the U.S. is a monetarily driven society, if the masses have enough coin in their pockets to relatively effortlessly do most of what they want need to do, they won't have a conniption and revolt, hence tax cuts, welfare, consumer protection regulations, civil rights laws, labor laws, etc. Quite frankly, insofar as the nation's non-elites didn't en masse undertake armed revolt during the Depression, whatever be the limit at which they would do, that wasn't it, and we're nowhere near their doing so now.
  
  On the other hand, we do right now face a problem with people unlawfully using firearms. Our political and social culture/system implores our leaders to resolve that problem. If doing so entails curtailing access to "combat rifles" without curtailing economic satisfaction, armed revolt en masse is, IMO, likely to be abated.

[High-level political proponents of gun laws], as they always do, opportunistically latch onto reactionary public sentiment to further their own agenda. That agenda is to make the population incapable of effective revolt. This tactic has been explicitly expressed and universally implemented by dominators throughout history, and to think that our "leaders" are any different just because they're "ours" is naive.

I'm not going to deny the past behavioral patterns of tyrants and despots, and neither am I going to declare we cannot or won't someday find ourselves governed by tyrants/despots. I will say that's a bridge to cross when we get there. You may see us as being near the bridge, so to speak, but I don't. I think most people don't.

Quite simply, the fact that a leader or group thereof denies the polity one right among many the polity treasures does not at all make the leader or group a despot/tyrant. Every one of us has at various times been denied a right/privilege we "really wanted," and yet here the overwhelming majority of us are none the worse off. The right to possess "combat rifles" is no different than any other thing one once might have wanted/demanded and that one didn't receive or retain. Throwing a tantrum over "combat rifle" possession ability is, to my mind, puerile.

My position is that it is immoral and ineffective to disallow the citizenry to own combat rifles under any circumstances....[for to do so is to make] the population incapable of effective revolt.

• What, in your mind, is "effective revolt?"
• What, in your mind, does an "effective revolt" achieve as compared with an "ineffective revolt?"
• What, in your mind, about an "effective revolt" makes "combat rifles" a necessity?

Also, I'm not going to accept that because some other "high-level political proponents of gun laws" who functioned within a sovereignty having a materially different governing/political environment than the U.S. does, there be due to believe

Apologies. I didn't realize I'd left this part of my outline uncompleted. It should have read:

Also, I'm not going to accept that because history may have produced and advanced other "high-level political proponents of gun laws (HLPPs)" who, functioning within a sovereignty having a materially different governing/political environment than the U.S. does, sought to disable their citizenry's revolutionary capacity, there, in turn, be due cause to believe that HLPPs motivated by 21st century U.S. stimuli share those "forebears' " motivations and echo their actions.​

 

[Brian Blackwell]

Xelor, of course, your precision and logic is beyond reproach, as always; and must be conceded in factual matters. However, we do differ in opinion on this topic where speculations and moral judgments are concerned.

Your perception that my rant did not specifically target you is correct. I was speaking on the overall topic of gun control, and directed the comment to you because I wanted you to understand the context for my replies on this subject, be they to you directly or or others.

To overlook the infringement on personal liberty in favor of the perceived societal benefit is reflective of a utilitarian outlook. This is a perspective I deem sufficiently perilous as to border on inherent immorality. It is no surprise, then, that I reject democratic law outright, as it is rooted in nebulous notions of this ideal.

I should qualify this statement by limiting the context to the application of this principle outward; meaning that it is perfectly acceptable, to my mind, for a person to willingly sacrifice their own freedom to benefit the masses, but it is quite another matter to insist that others do so.

It was reckless to inject speculations about motivations into this discussion, but at some point anecdotal evidence piles so high that to ignore it is rigid to the point of intellectual detriment. The increasing centralization of power in this country since the time of the Declaration to the modern day cannot be overlooked. There is a trend, and this trend - if not reversed - would lead to a social order not unlike those historical examples whereby disarmament led to outright tyranny.

Whether you see this prospect as worthy of immediate concern or not, it would be imprudent to dismiss it utterly; considering that to sacrifice freedom for a small amount of potential security on this issue could very likely be the deciding factor in that plausible future.

An effective revolt, in very broad terms, would be one whereby the people could defend themselves sufficiently to stop outright tyranny from establishing itself beyond hope of domestic overthrow. An ineffective revolt fails in this effort. Combat rifles, for the purposes of this discussion, must be defined as those guns which are still legally available, and would serve best against a high number of aggressive opponents. In other words, those guns which can kill the largest number of people.

It is atrocious that we should be made to consider such things, but remember that I am talking about self-defense, and defense of freedom. I could not assert definitively that combat rifles would be necessary in this scenario any more than could a soldier on the front lines of any war; but like that soldier, I deem it likely enough, and prudent to err on the side of caution.

I concede the points made about the efficacy of gun law and so forth, as they exist beyond the my suggested categorical moral imperative in regard to individual liberty. Most of this does, really, but we can’t limit all conversation to the invalidity of governemental authority Hahaha.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

Xelor, of course, your precision and logic is beyond reproach, as always; and must be conceded in factual matters. However, we do differ in opinion on this topic where speculations and moral judgments are concerned.

Your perception that my rant did not specifically target you is correct. I was speaking on the overall topic of gun control, and directed the comment to you because I wanted you to understand the context for my replies on this subject, be they to you directly or or others.

To overlook the infringement on personal liberty in favor of the perceived societal benefit is reflective of a utilitarian outlook. This is a perspective I deem sufficiently perilous as to border on inherent immorality. It is no surprise, then, that I reject democratic law outright, as it is rooted in nebulous notions of this ideal.

I should qualify this statement by limiting the context to the application of this principle outward; meaning that it is perfectly acceptable, to my mind, for a person to willingly sacrifice their own freedom to benefit the masses, but it is quite another matter to insist that others do so.

It was reckless to inject speculations about motivations into this discussion, but at some point anecdotal evidence piles so high that to ignore it is rigid to the point of intellectual detriment. The increasing centralization of power in this country since the time of the Declaration to the modern day cannot be overlooked. There is a trend, and this trend - if not reversed - would lead to a social order not unlike those historical examples whereby disarmament led to outright tyranny.

Whether you see this prospect as worthy of immediate concern or not, it would be imprudent to dismiss it utterly, considering that to sacrifice freedom for the illusion of temporary security on this issue could very likely be the deciding factor in that possible future.

An effective revolt, in very broad terms, would be one whereby the people could defend themselves sufficiently to stop outright tyranny from establishing itself beyond hope of domestic overthrow. Combat rifles, for the purposes of this discussion, must be defined as those guns which are still legally available, and would serve best against a high number of aggressive opponents. In other words, those guns which can kill the largest number of people possible. It is atrocious that we should even have to consider such things, but remember that I am talking about self-defense, and defense of freedom.

 

[Picaro]

Xelor, of course, your precision and logic is beyond reproach, as always; and must be conceded in factual matters.

^^^Ah well, shamelessly admits to lack of any credibility or reasoning skills now. Glad I didn't waste any time reading your meandering sophistry, either.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

Xelor, of course, your precision and logic is beyond reproach, as always; and must be conceded in factual matters.

^^^Ah well, shamelessly admits to lack of any credibility or reasoning skills now. Glad I didn't waste any time reading your meandering sophistry, either.

Um... yeah, acknowledging another's ability to think with lucidity doesn't imply a denial of my own. If by "sophistry" you're implying that I aim to bewilder and deceive, rather than elucidate and uplift, I challenge you to refute any logical claim I've made anywhere on these boards. Not my speculations and opinions, mind you, but my logical arguments.

Ah, but how would you know? You make judgments before even reading people's posts. Don't be so rash. I'm sure we both have the same aims in mind - the safety and prosperity of humanity, and what have you - so why speak as anything but friends? I assure you, there are far greater wastes of time here than my posts. Pretty much everything that debates political issues and flames leftward or rightward, instead of recognizing politics for the utter sham that it is.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Xelor, of course, your precision and logic is beyond reproach, as always; and must be conceded in factual matters. However, we do differ in opinion on this topic where speculations and moral judgments are concerned.

Your perception that my rant did not specifically target you is correct. I was speaking on the overall topic of gun control, and directed the comment to you because I wanted you to understand the context for my replies on this subject, be they to you directly or or others.

To overlook the infringement on personal liberty in favor of the perceived societal benefit is reflective of a utilitarian outlook. This is a perspective I deem sufficiently perilous as to border on inherent immorality. It is no surprise, then, that I reject democratic law outright, as it is rooted in nebulous notions of this ideal.

I should qualify this statement by limiting the context to the application of this principle outward; meaning that it is perfectly acceptable, to my mind, for a person to willingly sacrifice their own freedom to benefit the masses, but it is quite another matter to insist that others do so.

It was reckless to inject speculations about motivations into this discussion, but at some point anecdotal evidence piles so high that to ignore it is rigid to the point of intellectual detriment. The increasing centralization of power in this country since the time of the Declaration to the modern day cannot be overlooked. There is a trend, and this trend - if not reversed - would lead to a social order not unlike those historical examples whereby disarmament led to outright tyranny.

Whether you see this prospect as worthy of immediate concern or not, it would be imprudent to dismiss it utterly; considering that to sacrifice freedom for a small amount of potential security on this issue could very likely be the deciding factor in that plausible future.

An effective revolt, in very broad terms, would be one whereby the people could defend themselves sufficiently to stop outright tyranny from establishing itself beyond hope of domestic overthrow. An ineffective revolt fails in this effort. Combat rifles, for the purposes of this discussion, must be defined as those guns which are still legally available, and would serve best against a high number of aggressive opponents. In other words, those guns which can kill the largest number of people.

It is atrocious that we should be made to consider such things, but remember that I am talking about self-defense, and defense of freedom. I could not assert definitively that combat rifles would be necessary in this scenario any more than could a soldier on the front lines of any war; but like that soldier, I deem it likely enough, and prudent to err on the side of caution.

I concede the points made about the efficacy of gun law and so forth, as they exist beyond the my suggested categorical moral imperative in regard to individual liberty. Most of this does, really, but we can’t limit all conversation to the invalidity of governemental authority Hahaha.

that's a bridge to cross when we get there. You may see us as being near the bridge, so to speak, but I don't.

your precision and logic is beyond reproach

Thank you.

your precision and logic is beyond reproach, as always; and must be conceded in factual matters.

TY. I do indeed place high importance on existential accuracy.

we do differ in opinion on this topic where speculations and moral judgments are concerned.

Well, that's to be expected in pretty nearly any discussion governance theory and practice, ethics, and so on. I dare say the only person with whom I agree 100% is myself. LOL

As I once did re: my folks' views, my kids, until their existence ceases to depend on me, comport themselves as though they completely agree with me -- apparently, they're well aware so doing is overwhelmingly in their best interests, no matter whether to them it seems so -- but I know better than to think they necessarily do so thoroughly concur.

our perception that my rant did not specifically target you is correct. I was speaking on the overall topic of gun control, and directed the comment to you because I wanted you to understand the context for my replies on this subject

Understood. TY for the clarification.

To overlook the infringement on personal liberty in favor of the perceived societal benefit is reflective of a utilitarian outlook. This is a perspective I deem sufficiently perilous as to border on inherent immorality. It is no surprise, then, that I reject democratic law outright, as it is rooted in nebulous notions of this ideal.

I acknowledge there may be an abstract and tiny societal benefit associated with gun control measures to which I'd acquiesce; however, utilitarianism on a societal scale is a miniscule (if at any) share of what moves me to forbear constraints on the distribution of/access to some genres of firearms.

I've never thought of gun control in utilitarian terms. Does anyone? I guess there must be some who do....At any rate, I don't because a hell of a lot of people, more than have died in any given year in the past half century, would have to be shot (and injured or killed) before banning guns of any sort does any "greatest good" for any "greatest number" of members of the community (the USA) to which the control measures would apply. Accordingly, it's just as well to me that you or anyone else construes utilitarianism unsatisfactory as a philosophical basis for gun control measures. If someone comes along saying to me "utilitarianism informs us of why we should implement XYZ gun control measure(s)," I won't leap to rebut them, but neither will I amplify or join in their argument.

Were I forced to comment, I might respond by rejecting/discounting (not sure right now which) the utilitarian argument presented while accepting the conclusion, assuming it's a conclusion having my approbation. I'm sure there are members here who will attest to the fact that I have on occasion agreed with there "ultimate" position while also expressing my rejection of the argument they presented in support of it. (IIRC, that is precisely what happened in the antecedent to this discussion.

While I'm not keen on governments protecting individuals from themselves, I'm quite keen on governments taking actions that plausibly will preserve their citizens' status as living. Thus my philosophical basis for being willing to acquiesce to gun control measures is that it's morally negligent for a person or entity having a duty of care to one or more individuals to take less than the full set of actions it is capable of taking (I don't mean "may take") to minimize the risk that those individuals don't lose their lives. [1] (I know that risk cannot be eliminated; thus I'm not suggesting that be a goal.)


Note:

1. As goes measures -- some of which are gun-control and others of which are people motivators -- I consider the U.S. and state governments of being capable of implementing and enforcing, what measures I would acquiesce to and what measures I'd propose, well, different measures fall into each group.

To overlook the infringement on personal liberty in favor of the perceived societal benefit is reflective of a utilitarian outlook. This is a perspective I deem sufficiently perilous as to border on inherent immorality. It is no surprise, then, that I reject democratic law outright, as it is rooted in nebulous notions of this ideal.

I should qualify this statement by limiting the context to the application of this principle outward; meaning that it is perfectly acceptable, to my mind, for a person to willingly sacrifice their own freedom to benefit the masses, but it is quite another matter to insist that others do so.

It was reckless to inject speculations about motivations into this discussion, but at some point anecdotal evidence piles so high that to ignore it is rigid to the point of intellectual detriment.

I'm not asking you or anyone else to ignore the anecdotal information to which you are privy. I'm simply saying recognize it for what it is, rather than present it as more than that, which is to say, rationally extrapolatable to a population of individuals, behaviors or events. The population to which anecdotal information accurately describes people, behaviors and events consists only of the people, places and things anecdotally observed.

It was reckless to inject speculations about motivations into this discussion, but at some point anecdotal evidence piles so high that to ignore it is rigid to the point of intellectual detriment. The increasing centralization of power in this country since the time of the Declaration to the modern day cannot be overlooked. There is a trend, and this trend - if not reversed - would lead to a social order not unlike those historical examples whereby disarmament led to outright tyranny.

Concentration of aspects of federal power notwithstanding, a government has the obligation of doing as much as can be done to minimize the risk and incidence of its citizens getting killed. I don't care whether the 50 states implement ways and means to achieve the goal I identifies in my last post or whether the federal government does so. What matters to me is that there be material, near total uniformity of action(s) taken in all 50 states and U.S. territories and possessions. (Obviously, it's vastly more efficient for the federal government to take the actions, but I'm not fussing over whether it be the federal or the states' governments that do so.)

I think the actions taken must be material and near total uniform because having lived in D.C. all my life, I've observed that, as goes the moral obligation and goal I've stated/described, one jurisdiction having strict "gun laws" and having a neighboring jurisdiction (or more) that doesn't results in an environment whereby the jurisdiction that has the strict laws may as well not. To wit, D.C. had strict gun laws; however, one could literally walk across a short bridge into VA, buy a gun and walk back into D.C. with it and nobody would ever know nor ask because we don't search people moving about the country. (Nobody wants that or is suggesting it.) If one was in a car, unlike walking which fairly well constrained one to pistols, there was no limit to what one could buy and bring into the city.

Now that's an anecdotal observation of what did happen in the D.C. area. Do you have any reason that would strongly indicate about wouldn't happen anywhere else in the U.S. where adjacent jurisdictions have dramatically different gun-related laws?

If you are moved to answer that question, please do so in consideration of my earlier remarks in post 271, particularly but not exclusively those found in the sections that begin with the following words:

Let me set three things straight from the start:

To be sure, there will be some quantity of individuals for whom no law will impede

this trend - if not reversed - would lead to a social order not unlike those historical examples whereby disarmament led to outright tyranny.

Whether you see this prospect as worthy of immediate concern or not, it would be imprudent to dismiss it utterly; considering that to sacrifice freedom for a small amount of potential security on this issue could very likely be the deciding factor in that plausible future.

What I see as an immediate concern is the incidence and frequency of people unlawfully using firearms to kill or injure others who post no imminent threat to the person shooting the firearm. Between that and the prospect of the federal government becoming tyrannical, the former is happening monthly, maybe weekly, and the latter has a swarm of checks and balances holding its advance and realization at bay, notwithstanding whatever paltry -- in comparison to being unlawfully shot dead -- ideals, privileges, rights and conveniences you, I or others may have found ourselves forgoing. So, no, I'm not suggesting one fully dismiss the risk of governmental tyranny; I'm saying deal with the ill that's presently in people's faces, and playgrounds, and living rooms and schools and churches and so on.

An effective revolt, in very broad terms, would be one whereby the people could defend themselves sufficiently to stop outright tyranny from establishing itself beyond hope of domestic overthrow. An ineffective revolt fails in this effort.

Okay, but within the structure of U.S. law and culture, we have available non-armed means of revolting. Insofar as there's no pressing need to revolt at all, not even is there one vaguely visible on the horizon, I think we can do just fine for quite some time without contemplating our readiness to undertake yet another civil war.

Perhaps you see a different level of discontent than do I....That said, even in the 1840s-1860s, people -- citizens and elected office holders -- tried a lot of things before they resorted to armed revolt. Indeed, as I think about it quickly, about the only folks whom I can recall revolting, obviously on a smaller scale than the Civil War, were people/groups who were just too damned impatient and impertinent, and whom today, but for their being our forefathers, we'd probably and rightly call terrorists, even if we agree or don't agree with their motives.

Combat rifles, for the purposes of this discussion, must be defined as those guns which are still legally available, and would serve best against a high number of aggressive opponents. In other words, those guns which can kill the largest number of people.

Okay.

It is atrocious that we should be made to consider such things

Agreed.

It is atrocious that we should be made to consider such things, but remember that I am talking about self-defense, and defense of freedom.

Okay. I'm talking about keeping people, some 10K+ more than are today, alive to bitch and moan about tyranny and whatever else suits them to gripe about. That's not the greatest number of people, but it's a number of people who had no business dying when they did and at the hand of someone who unlawfully shot them in an environment governed by an Executive and Legislature that had not as has not undertaken everything it can

It is atrocious that we should be made to consider such things, but remember that I am talking about self-defense, and defense of freedom. I could not assert definitively that combat rifles would be necessary in this scenario any more than could a soldier on the front lines of any war; but like that soldier, I deem it likely enough, and prudent to err on the side of caution.

You have a philosophy degree, and that tells me that you know as well as I do that "just in case" logic is illogical unless it the person invoking can show that preparing for the worst-case scenario -- that of a tyrannical government taking arms against its people or otherwise wholesale abusing, deceiving, and the preponderance of its citizenry -- is the most sound (qualitatively and quantitatively) course of action than can be taken. Insofar as between 1970 and 2014, nearly 20% of middle income households became upper income households, and in the same period one percent of low income households increased out of the low income income bracket, it's hard to argue soundly that the U.S. government is abusing its people.

So while it may soothe your emotions to advocate for "erring on the side of caution" as go the prospects of that basis being sound/cogent, you've quite an uphill climb. That's not to say I cannot be convinced of some or all of your case. It's just that the "bar" is high, which, IMO, for this matter, it should be.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Um... yeah, acknowledging another's ability to think with lucidity doesn't imply a denial of my own. If by "sophistry" you're implying that I aim to bewilder and deceive, rather than elucidate and uplift, I challenge you to refute any logical claim I've made anywhere on these boards. Not my speculations and opinions, mind you, but my logical arguments.

Ah, but how would you know? You make judgments before even reading people's posts. Don't be so rash. I'm sure we both have the same aims in mind - the safety and prosperity of humanity, and what have you - so why speak as anything but friends? I assure you, there are far greater wastes of time here than my posts. Pretty much everything that debates political issues and flames leftward or rightward, instead of recognizing politics for the utter sham that it is.

recognizing politics for the utter sham that it is.

Indeed...I too find much that is deemed political really isn't.

As goes policy aimed at reducing the incidence of unlawful gun-related deaths/injuries, it's unlikely I'm going to reject any of them, be it the proposals from the right or left, because I desire fewer people dead than have died from unlawful gun use than I desire a firearm or to use one. Indeed, were it to happen that unlawful-gun-death-reduction legislation be implemented and sometime thereafter we realize a rate of 1-10 per year, and I in one of those years be one of the 10, better that than 200, 2000, or 20K, the latter being somewhere around what we've been running for the past too many years.

That, of course, is not an argument I'd propone for my positions on the matter. It's merely a way of illustrating that I see the matter as being more important than anything I might wish for myself.

 

[usmbguest5318]

New questions, Mac1958:

• Partisanship, tribalism and cognitive dissonance.
  • How are they similar -- etiologically, consequentially and existentially?
  • How are they different -- etiologically, consequentially and existentially?
  • What, if any, relationship do you posit exists among them?

 

[Mac1958]

New questions, Mac1958:

• Partisanship, tribalism and cognitive dissonance.
  • How are they similar -- etiologically, consequentially and existentially?
  • How are they different -- etiologically, consequentially and existentially?
  • What, if any, relationship do you posit exists among them?

Hmm. Okay.

Partisanship vs. tribalism present a chicken-or-the-egg problem for me. I guess I'd say (while working on only my first cup of coffee, dangerous) that partisanship provides people the comfort of belonging to a tribe. We tend to be tribal mammals, so this is the natural herd instinct. And I suppose that the deeper we get into tribalism, the more difficult it is to extract ourselves.

Part of the reason for that is our tribal instincts, but the other part is the intellectual isolation that we've talked about before - once you're in a tribe, you allow yourself to be exposed to a more and more focused and exclusionary set of data, belief systems and thought processes. So it simply compounds on itself, and ultimately, you're just lost. I could certainly point to a few examples of that on this board.

So then, partisanship and tribalism are different in that tribalism is a draw, an attraction of partisanship. They are similar in that they work hand in hand in distorting thought processes.

Which brings us to cognitive dissonance, which I'd classify as one of the primary symptoms of the affliction. The deeper one's mind is distorted by this affliction, the more likely they are to believe (or at least forgive, avoid, ignore) things they both say and see that - at some level, somewhere - they know are simply not true. The affliction gives them some kind of license to intellectually cram a square peg into a round hole, dust off their hands, and move on.
.