The 2nd amendment

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by Quad
It wasn't a rebuttal. Her pointing out the practices of other countries insinuated a negative value judgement. It insinuated that it is "bad" to limit manufacturing and proliferation of firearms. I was pointing out that a judgement of "bad" is american. Of course you didn't understand what I meant because you're only looking to project your bullshit onto me, you stupid fuck.

It is bad. As guns are not the problem. Criminals are. Guns are a moral good.

The values of the eurolibs should be judged negatively, their socialist outlook is anathema to human inventiveness and prolifiration throughout the galaxy. This planet is just the starting point y'all, I'm serious.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

The dying socialist eurolib economies aren't up to the task of financing humanities future. It's that simple. Socialism is the evil discipline of both stealing from the producers of society and villainizing them at the same time.

 

[Quad]

Two things.

I never brought up taking guns away from anybody, ever. but you people seem to think I have.

Also, taking guns away from law abiding citizens has been an amazing success for reducing violent crime in other countries. It's hard to argue with the truth. The reason we have higher violent crime isn't just because we're allowed to own guns and they aren't, violence and retribution are woven into the social fabric of this country - which is why gun control that strips ownership rights is not the answer - but the most effective way to combat gun crime is to control guns and regulate the market. If you are a law abiding citizen you shouldn't mind being regulated. People who commit crimes don't think about consequences, punishments do not deter people from commiting most economic crimes and certainly not crimes of passion. The death penalty does not deter people from commiting even the most minor of offenses as a study the british government did in the 1800's pointed out. They made pickpocketing a capital crime and found that 60% of pickpockets they arrested had stolen while witnessing an execution. There's a lot of "far out" sort of ideas that don't square with our cultural values but they are based on reality and other cultures in western nations at their core share the same value for human life and protection of libery that we do. Torture and the death penalty are abolished in other industrialized countries because it's been proven that punishment does not deter people from crime. If you really think about it even our criminal justice system is not designed to punish or rehab - just to get people off the street and stop them from breaking more laws, to make them "serve their debt." Encouraging accountability should not mean increasing punishment because we've tried that and it doesn't work. There should be penalties and punishments but there needs to be more - there needs to be a change in the cultural normative values that govern us. The way we do that is we alter social institutions so that they serve us, if we have high rates of violent crime then we need to use our democratic power and make changes. That is not communist, this is alexander hamilton 101, a hundred years before the birth of marx.

Responsible gun owners should be the ones leading the charge to change social institutions and initiate proper market regulation to insure protection of rights and protection of people. I don't own a gun, I might if I decide I need to join a militia and overthrow the government (which is the real reason we have that right but I think it should be protected for private personal use as well). I'd like to see the law enforce self-regulation by arms manufacturers, I don't like that my money goes to pay for a lot of law enforcement and punishment that is due to irresponsibility of individuals and of businesses in the name of "responsible gun owners." I say if you want your guns and don't want to regulate the proliferation of arms then you can pay all the costs of it. Personally, I find it hard to hold an emotionally crippled gang member without a father and without any money responsible for making incorrect choices. I don't think pointing out that "its his fault not ours" that he uses a gun solves anything, I don't understand the point of it. Of course he "chose" to use a gun but your choices but there are a lot of things that limit everyones choices and until we live in a utopian society where markets regulate themselves and ideals of accountability are shared by all it is our job to reform our social institutions to #1 encourage accountability #2 protect as many people as we possibly can in the mean time.

 

[DKSuddeth]

Also, taking guns away from law abiding citizens has been an amazing success for reducing violent crime in other countries. It's hard to argue with the truth.

now, add the other portion to that little statistic and tell us how many NON violent crimes are comitted against people not allowed to defend themselves.

 

[Quad]

Ayn Rand and other objectivist ignore the catalyst of competition in a marketplace and that is market regulation and a system of self governance that distributes power equally despite accumulated wealth. Without regulation that protects choice and limits the power of money people with more resources will always make out better at the figurative bargaining table, each time parties go to the bargaining table those with more resources will make out better, the class divide will widen (as it is doing now) and the ability for people to compete will be restricted. without protection of the competitive catalyst a market will destroy itself. avoiding the class divide, preventing pseudo aristocracy, and insuring that a market will not crumble inwards on itself are things the founding fathers had very much in mind when they created this country. Not even Adam Smith, the father of capitalism would agree with objectivist ethics - marketplaces are meant to serve people - capitalism is best because it allows for the most rapid technological and social growth - SOCIAL growth. It can allow for a better quality of life for all people, including the poorest laborers much quicker then any socialist or communist system can. Even capitalism was a theory that had the betterment of all those, even those without personal initiative, to benefit - because it is a western theory based on enlightenment ideals - it is the best western theory because it is the most successful and useful. You cannot ignore one of the key things makes it successful though and that is market regulation through a system of self governance that strives to equally distribute power.

Before you call me a communist I think you need to understand what capitalism is because you don't seem to understand the difference. they are both theories that are rooted in the betterment of society and all people in society, the difference is in the incentive. as a theory communism operates under democratic principals but people work for the betterment of others, the reality is people work harder when they are rewarded directly for it - hence capitalism crushes communism. distribution of power is more important to capitalism though because it is what insures the most meaningful competition - a democracy is the best way to distribute power while keeping individual reward.

 

[Quad]

Why would you need to defend yourself against a non-violent crime? See, it's that taking the law into your own hands thing that's dangerous. Hard to think of a real effective system to do that that isn't based on some romanticized wild-west mentality. There's a reason we have a codified system of law that values objectivity and not subjective personal judgement of lone individuals.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by Quad
Why would you need to defend yourself against a non-violent crime? See, it's that taking the law into your own hands thing that's dangerous. Hard to think of a real effective system to do that that isn't based on some romanticized wild-west mentality. There's a reason we have a codified system of law that values objectivity and not subjective personal judgement of lone individuals.

Yes and there's a reason self defense IS a legitimate defense for popping a cap in someone's ass. It makes perfect sense.

 

[Quad]

It's also good to point out that real communism and socialism rely on the same democratic catalyst for growh and no "so called" communist/socialist revolution has resulted in a democratic government. Our revolution had an advantage in that we were seperated from our rulers by a vast ocean and internal counter-revolutionary threats were minimal. I know you're too stupid to see that as anything but a defense of communism since you seem to enjoy hating things and will take whatever opportunity you can to belittle others, but it's worth thinking about if you can.

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by Quad
Why would you need to defend yourself against a non-violent crime? See, it's that taking the law into your own hands thing that's dangerous. Hard to think of a real effective system to do that that isn't based on some romanticized wild-west mentality. There's a reason we have a codified system of law that values objectivity and not subjective personal judgement of lone individuals.

so in a 'gunless society' we should all leave our doors unlocked and remove all ownership rights. robbery will now be considered a non-violent crime because its done without a weapon so feel free to take your neighbors stereo while your other neighbor takes your car.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by Quad
It's also good to point out that real communism and socialism rely on the same democratic catalyst for growh and no "so called" communist/socialist revolution has resulted in a democratic government. Our revolution had an advantage in that we were seperated from our rulers by a vast ocean and internal counter-revolutionary threats were minimal. I know you're too stupid to see that as anything but a defense of communism since you seem to enjoy hating things and will take whatever opportunity you can to belittle others, but it's worth thinking about if you can.

I assume you're talking to me, Though you're to cowardly to do it like a man. See, you libs can't take being wrong. When you're wrong you get nasty. Socialism has proven a failure time and time again. Notice that the only country competent to run the world is the LEAST socialist. Does this compute on your 2 bit shit chip?

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by Quad
It's also good to point out that real communism and socialism rely on the same democratic catalyst for growh and no "so called" communist/socialist revolution has resulted in a democratic government. Our revolution had an advantage in that we were seperated from our rulers by a vast ocean and internal counter-revolutionary threats were minimal. I know you're too stupid to see that as anything but a defense of communism since you seem to enjoy hating things and will take whatever opportunity you can to belittle others, but it's worth thinking about if you can.

so WTF are you really trying to say? because that made little sense when considering the topic at hand.

 

[Quad]

For the 900th time I haven't advocated a gunless society.

But whatever, if you have trouble accepting the fact that your right to bare arms perpetuates violence then maybe you aren't as much of a "personal responsibility" type as you make out. You could atleast say "hey, to make an omelette you have to break a few eggs" - you want your guns, you don't care what it means, and if society had no violent crimes without guns you still wouldn't want to give them up. That's ok, I think I said plenty of times I believe in our right to bare arms despite the negativity of it and despite the success other countries have had in firearms regulation. Just because I don't think we have a perfect system yet doesn't mean I'm saying "take all the guns away like they do in Japan." Atleast I have the balls to admit our system is not very effective at the moment.

You've been sitting here "getting nasty" at me since my initial post. Atleast I've called you stupid while directly responding to things you've said as opposed to insults being dependent on projecting my frustrations onto you and putting words in your mouth.

See, I told you you'd see my comment as a defense of socialism. Democracy is the catalyst of growth in socialism just like it is in capitalism, if there haven't been truely democratic socialist governments then of course there are no successful socialist states - stop demonizing something you don't understand. There is no reason for you to have an emotional investment when talking about socialism.

We are the wealthiest country - to you - that means we are the most succesful, you grew up in the most capitalistic, cut throat, materialistic country on the planet - you see our wealth as meaning we're the most successful. I'm sure the average canadian sees their country as the most successful, if other countries had our same values they'd duplicate our market system. Not everying is relative but definitions of "success" are.

 

[Quad]

made just about as much sense as you calling me a communist over and over and over and over again despite my very obvious and superior understanding and belief in capitalism.

 

[DKSuddeth]

Quad, yes, throughout your posts you have never said the words that you wish to remove guns from law abiding citizens, but you have made several comments about how they are no longer needed for various reason in concert with using stricter gun control measures against criminals.

I tell you now, you can't have it both ways and still have an independent free america. It cannot, and will not, ever happen. We've had millenia of historical accounts where the people have been trampled upon by their rules through force of arms.

the 2nd amendment, if needing revamped, needs to allow law abiding american citizens to have automatic weapons.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by Quad
For the 900th time I haven't advocated a gunless society.

But whatever, if you have trouble accepting the fact that your right to bare arms perpetuates violence then maybe you aren't as much of a "personal responsibility" type as you make out.

You don't know dk. You don't know what effect HIS particular right to carry arms has.

You could atleast say "hey, to make an omelette you have to break a few eggs" - you want your guns, you don't care what it means, and if society had no violent crimes without guns you still wouldn't want to give them up. That's ok, I think I said plenty of times I believe in our right to bare arms despite the negativity of it and despite the success other countries have had in firearms regulation. Just because I don't think we have a perfect system yet doesn't mean I'm saying "take all the guns away like they do in Japan." Atleast I have the balls to admit our system is not very effective at the moment.

You're mistaking ignorance for balls.

You've been sitting here "getting nasty" at me since my initial post. Atleast I've called you stupid while directly responding to things you've said as opposed to insults being dependent on projecting my frustrations onto you and putting words in your mouth.

See, I told you you'd see my comment as a defense of socialism. Democracy is the catalyst of growth in socialism just like it is in capitalism, if there haven't been truely democratic socialist governments then of course there are no successful socialist states - stop demonizing something you don't understand. There is no reason for you to have an emotional investment when talking about socialism.

Democracy is not a catalyst for growth. Unserved market potential and investment capital are.

We are the wealthiest country - to you - that means we are the most succesful, you grew up in the most capitalistic, cut throat, materialistic country on the planet - you see our wealth as meaning we're the most successful. I'm sure the average canadian sees their country as the most successful, if other countries had our same values they'd duplicate our market system. Not everying is relative but definitions of "success" are.

If there are many defintion to success, why is it that libs main goal is getting their hands on other peoples money in the name of "society"? Aren't they preoccupied with materialism too much when all they consider in their closed retarded moral system is relative wealth of individuals, and Rich = bad and poor =good.

Anyone who lives in another country and thinks it's more successful than america is lying to himself. Success does not equal being a socialist pansy ass, like you seem to think.

Socialism is a violation of individual rights. Individual rights are the cornerstone of our society. It's why we're kicking ass. Libs just want the cash and don't even care to analyze what makes a society successful. They's just stuck in this communism crap that has proven to be a failure.

 

[Quad]

The thing though about a "revolutionary" scenario, gun control that does not remove guns from law abiding citizens (market regulation, registration, accountability legislation) can all be set aside since just about all regulatory systems are (atleast temporarily) set aside in a revolution. Legislation could very easily be designed to protect our right to armed revolt and to encourage responsibility of gun owners/sellers/manufacturers.

I think that companies in a democracy have ethical obligations that go beyond profit - especially in the case of gun manufacturers, auto manufacturers, general contracting firms etc. where a lapse or lack of ethical reasoning could result in my death without me "choosing" to "invest" in their product.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by Quad
The thing though about a "revolutionary" scenario, gun control that does not remove guns from law abiding citizens (market regulation, registration, accountability legislation) can all be set aside since just about all regulatory systems are (atleast temporarily) set aside in a revolution. Legislation could very easily be designed to protect our right to armed revolt and to encourage responsibility of gun owners.

That's sort of what we were all thinking was happening already, with our right to own guns and all.

Good luck getting any government to codify your right to armed revolt. That's pretty fucking funny, man. You're hilarious!

"Gosh, I hope this new government codifies our right to armed revolt. Eeeh, a spider!"

 

[DKSuddeth]

on no, its a SCARY tree :

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
on no, its a SCARY tree :

ah ha.

 

[Quad]

right wing avenger...

Have you even read adam smith or thomas jefferson or alexander hamilton?

Whats with these stupid emotional pronouncements about "libs" anyways? Is the world that black and white to you?

Growth in markets is driven by competition, unrestricted capitalism has a 100% failure rate at encouraging competition. The nature of business and beaurocracy in our system is that the most predatory and unethical business practices yield massive short term rewards - short term rewards for producers limit the power of labor and the consumer at the figurative bargaining table. The balancing force that protects the competitive ability of individuals in the marketplace is and always has been democracy. You have a very very extreme way of looking at capitalism that has nothing to do with liberalism or conservativism. If you want to put yourself in a box you are an objectivist - in other words an ethical egoist. Objectivism is a utopian ideal about the ability of people and the goal of humanity. The reality is we do not have the right safeguards in place to de-regulate the marketplace, attempts at deregulation have been massive failures. Until we can protect long term competitive ability of all classes and tiers of labor then a free market system will collapse inward on itself.