Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
User Journal

Journal smittyoneeach's Journal: Questions for gungrabbers 40

Journal by smittyoneeach
Via http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/159800/
SO IF WEâ(TM)RE GOING TO HAVE A âoeNATIONAL CONVERSATION ON GUNS,â HERE ARE SOME OPENERS:
  • Why do people who favor gun-control call people who disagree with them murderers or accomplices to murder? Is that constructive?
  • Would any of the various proposals have actually prevented the tragedy that is the supposed reason for them?
  • When you say you hope that this event will finally change the debate, do you really mean that you hope you can use emotionalism and blood-libel-bullying to get your way on political issues that were losers in the past?
  • If youâ(TM)re a media member or politician, do you have armed security? Do you have a permit for a gun yourself? (Iâ(TM)m asking you Dianne Feinstein!) If so, what makes your life more valuable than other peopleâ(TM)s?
  • Do you know the difference between an automatic weapon and a semi-automatic weapon? Do your public statements reflect that difference?
  • If guns cause murder, why have murder rates fallen as gun sales have skyrocketed?
  • Have you talked about âoeFast and Furious?â Do you even know what it is? Do you care less when brown people die?
  • When you say that âoeweâ need to change, how are you planning to change? Does your change involve any actual sacrifice on your part?

Let me know when youâ(TM)re ready to talk about these things. Weâ(TM)ll have a conversation.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Questions for gungrabbers More

Questions for gungrabbers

Comments Filter:
  • The posts you have placed here recently have been filled with conspiracy theories, baseless accusations, and name calling. Now you just posted an unformatted list of questions from a far-right news source. If I actually answered every one of those questions directly, would you be willing to have a real conversation on the matter, or would you just blow it off with partisan talking points?

    I would be willing to answer those questions for you from my own point of view, though I don't see reason to believ
    • Let's start with first principles. What are the important objects in a discussion of society, sorted in descending order of importance?
      • So then if my object list does not match yours, you will just walk away? That seems like a poor way to start a conversation - and only further suggests that you don't want one at all.
        • In descending order of importance:
          1. Family
          2. Individual
          3. Community of faith
          4. State government
          5. Federal government

          There is your starting point. Please continue with the accusations: it underscores your duplicity.
          • OK, that is the most useful reply you have written to me in several months. Let's look at the concept of family, then. Specifically, what do you view as your single most important obligation to the family - and you can pick only one:
            • Food
            • Shelter
            • Companionship
            • Protection

            This of course does not mean the others are not important, but I ask you to state which is the most important obligation, from you to your family. If there is a single obligation that I have missed that is more important to you than any of

            • OK, that is the most useful reply you have written to me in several months.

              You're welcome.
              Moving from abstract to concrete: protection.
              If the food is bad, it's poison, if the roof caves, they're dead, and if they're otherwise dead, companionship is wasted.

      • 0. Life- and the right to all the needs that support human life from conception until natural death
        1. Obedience to legitimate authority
        2. Belief in the philosophy of civilization
        3. Peace with one's neighbors.
        4. Authentic Liberty (as opposed to the secular freemasonic right to hurt your neighbor)
        5. Property (you can pursue happiness all you want)
        6. Self Defense

        In decreasing priority, of course. Anarchists, of course, turn this list upsidedown.

        • Interesting list, but how subjective is it? I was going to something that would be easier for rational people who may scoff at altruism.
          Which is not to say that I'm disagreeing too directly with what you're proposing.

          • It is rather objective and based upon my reading of the results of a certain 2000 year old research project that is still ongoing.

            Scoffing at altruism is a good sign that your system is not rational; much like scoffing at authority isn't rational.

            • As a Christian, I am grasped by the ultimate in altruism. I also know that, from a secular view, altruism is seen at best as a scam.

              • Yes, but secularists are not rational- they have NPD (Narcissistic Personality Disorder)

                • Nah, I would contend that, say, Dawkins is rational, albeit spiritually dead.

                  • Being spiritually dead is irrational, in and of itself. Faith and reason need each other. Separate one from the other and all you get is either irrational faith or flawed reasoning.

                    • My theory is that the spirit is a seed within the mind, that may or may not germinate by faith (Eph 2:8-9).
                      Both can be in good trim in the healthy Christian, and certainly the spirit isn't independent of the mind.
                      But you can be dead in trespasses and sins, and still ethical, so I fall short of buying "irrational" for that case.
                      Kind of a fine point here.

                    • Being dead in trespass and sin kind of is the opposite of being ethical is the problem. That's why I say there is no such thing as "Good without God".

                      One cannot be ethical without *also* being mindful of sin and all of the consequences thereof, not just eternal but also temporal.

                    • "Dead in trespass and sin" mostly means unsaved. The unsaved cannot impress God, any more than the works of the saved can.
                      But the Devil does plenty of "good" works along the way to building a bigger ruin.
                      The beauty of ethics is that one can rationalize all manner of evil, because ethics involves perverse applications of human creativity to crush the meaning out of words. Look at the sophistries afoot at SCOTUS.
                      Morality, anchored in the Word of God, is having none of that noise, God be praised.

                    • Scotus is neither ethical nor rational. American Constitutional Exceptionalism is a heresy.

    • Gun control is admission of failure in creating a just and compassionate society.

      • "Gun control is a cheap distraction from the failure in creating a just and compassionate society."
        Fixed that for you.

  • I own a gun safe and it has a modest but decent collection of firearms in it. I enjoy target shooting and hunting and in the past I was a pretty outspoken advocate of an individual owning firearms without too many restrictions.

    At this time that gun safe is at my brother's house because I couldn't bring them with me here to Hungary. I mean, maybe there would have been a way but I'm sure it would have been expensive and I didn't want to deal with it.

    So here is all I have to add to the discussion and it's not

    • I don't own a gun myself, but I could lay hands on such without much difficulty.
      What troubles me is the Orwellian, irrational arguments proffered, and the diabolical ones offering them.

      • ...the diabolical ones offering them.

        The hilarity continues as the laments against power only grow more strident when one is pushed farther from its center.. The right words from the right people will have you completely pacified into doing their bidding.

        • The right words from the right people will have you completely pacified into doing their bidding.

          How truly offensive, the implication that I lack discernment, and merely need power pronouncements proffered per proper puppet.
          You're saying I can't figure out whether a specific argument is for or against liberty?
          Get bent, sir.

          • The 'implication' is in your own posts over the years that you are not concerned about centralized power per se, but only who wields it. It couldn't be more obvious. Let's can the charade, eh?

            • What sort of reveal are you after here, exactly?
              Is this one of those "Since you weren't always critical of it, you're not allowed to learn, and grow in understanding" twists?
              Given the two wings of the Progressive Party, I've supported the nominally 'conservative' one in the past. Is this the 'charade'?
              Liberty will out, buster, if has to punch a gaping hole in the middle of the Grand Obama Party to do it.

              • "...you're not allowed to learn, and grow in understanding" twists?

                You have given no indication of such. All along you have simply swallowed and regurgitated verbatim mass media punditry and propaganda and religious nuttery at every turn with nary a glance at the underlying principles. It's like the fundamentals of biology and instinct are unknown to you.

                You have already made quite obvious the cultural filter through which you view the world. Your definition of "liberty" leaves much to be desired. Conformit

  • There should be a general law that in any business open to the public or public institution, anybody seeing a person carrying an AR-15 rifle (or ANY gun) should pull the fire alarm and evacuate the building.

    In every case.

    I'm not one for gun control, but given our urban population today, such a law would be a wise precaution.

    • Sure, and now you've opened the door for Denial of Service attacks.
      I don't like your business? Pay a day laborer $20 to walk around with something that looks like a weapon. Needn't be more than something that will pass at a glance from an uneducated person.
      The laws themselves are bad enough; the unintended consequences are worse.

      • Better denial of service attacks than mass murders.

        Though in my blog I had it a *bit* better- automating the alarm based on a metal detector. Even better yet would be based on a high resolution scanner with shape recognition, to eliminate the false positives.

        Besides, if you've got enemies willing to place a fake gunman in your midst, you've got too much psychopathy to be running a business.

  • Only women are allowed guns, this helps for the 'rape and burglary' argument. Any man caught with a gun will be considered 'to prepare for rape and burglary' and sentenced accordingly. Any woman providing a man with a gun, same story.
    Men and women both can practise on a gun range, but the woman takes the guns home. A man caught with a gun in public can be shot by anyone else (preferingly by uniformed persons, but by ordinary women as well).

    It would help.

Slashdot Top Deals

Old programmers never die, they just hit account block limit.

Close