Mass Shooting El Paso...

[Teallaura]

If I'm dismissive it's because we've had this same discussion a half dozen times, and I think the excuses I get are, like, literally insane, and mostly not anything anyone actually takes seriously when they offer them.

To be honest, I'm on your side of the debate and I don't think your argument here is particularly strong or on point. They're discussing guerrilla warfare and you're going on about a Terminator-esque 'kill every thing that moves' war that is actually the far more unrealistic of the two. Neither, in my estimation, is a particularly likely scenario.

They are correct about the original reasoning behind the second amendment. But the argument that the American military cannot be defeated if it has no political holds on it is nonsensical - it can't be defeated if it has Star Wars type blasters, either and that's more likely than a military with no political holds in the US. It literally has no precedent. And it may not even be true - the US should not have won against the British, but we did (mostly via attrition, but a win is a win!).

The better argument is that if such action occurred, the resultant government could never again function as the US government we want. Taking up arms isn't going to get better governance - it's going to destroy the very governance you're after.

Also, yeah, there are people who take the gun ownership thing to ridiculous levels - but that's literally true of almost everything. There's always at least one moron that takes things too far - it's not a good argument against anything.

I'd prefer a world minus any guns at all - but I can't have that. Abolition sounds great - except for the patently unfair and unconstitutional thing. Other countries do lots of things - which is evidence that things can work but it has to be taken in context - and there are no countries all that similar to the US with such bans (to be fair, there aren't that many countries that are all that similar to the US! We take the First Amendment for granted yet it is virtually unique in the world).

Personally, I'm for strengthening the civil liabilities (your dog, your responsibility, yes, really) more than increasing specific weapons laws beyond what's in place now (adding more complexity just adds more wiggle room) and toughening up the holes in the interstate trade (if you can't legally buy it where you live, you shouldn't be able to subvert that law by going to another state).

The simple reason is that they are measures we can get and that can make a difference. Measures that cannot be implemented are of no use - and we are decades away from any real shot at convincing the nation that any form of stringent ban is a good idea - at the very least. Probably more thanks the Court incorporating the second amendment...

[KingsGambit]

Yes, there are fanatics, but what is point of this? Lots of crazy people about lots of things, also does not mean they dominate culture.

If you actually read my post, you would have noted where I pointed out that one of my examples sits on the board of the NRA. That's not dominant?

[Sparko]

For the sarcastically impaired the following is said in jest

If you really cared about drunk driving, you would push to ban all cars. That would solve the problem. The fact that none of you are willing to consider that means that you don't really care about saving lives.

Self-driving cars will solve the drunk driving problem.

[Cow Poke]

Self-driving cars will solve the drunk driving problem.

Until they start increasing the amount of ethanol in gasoline!

[Littlejoe]

I think all of the insanely weird excuse making for why guns can't be gotten rid of is just absolutely, and comically ridiculous, especially when we've seen plenty of other first world nations doing so and doing so without much issue. As a realist, I know it will never happen, not because it's impossible to do so. Not because the Constitution can't be rewritten. Not because it will lead to some crazy hypothetical post-apocalyptic world where the US government will one day rise up and kill it's citizenry (but also the military will side with the citizenry making the point moot, but also even if the military didn't side with the citizenry, it's not powerful enough to outgun them), no, it's not because of any of those reasons. It's because American's are absolutely fanatical about their killing devices. They LOVE them. Some near worship them (I've literally seen what I can only describe as gun shrines). At best I can hope for tighter gun control laws, but I know my idea of an out and out gun ban is unrealistic. I'm just sick and tired of hearing of people dying, children dying, from what seems to me a completely preventable issue.

Let me guess...Adrift, as a former Military Policeman, has a quite a bit of self-defense training, is still relatively young and/or still in decent shape, and/or is a large man (who by his size) or, because of all the above has little to fear from most threats that are NOT a gun? How close am I?

[rogue06]

Sheesh. Is this really the best you could do? Pitiful.
You act like I agreed with this argument and decided to argue that rather than the validity of the comparison using it to illustrate the bankruptcy of your argument. But then I'm hardly surprised that you'd flunk out and be incapable of showing why it was an invalid comparison as you asserted without a scintilla of evidence to support your claim -- and continue to do so.

And as an aside, in an effort to educate the unteachable, Wagner was at best a minor influence whereas folks like Houston Stewart Chamberlain and Arthur de Gobineau had a much more profound influence^[1]

This coming from someone whose only connection between Trump and the El Paso shooter is that they both had one word in common. smiley snicker.gif

No, what the shooter made clear as the primary "motivating factor" was his white supremacist fear, as reinforced by Donald Trump

Man you must really revel wallowing in failure.

The shooter never once mentioned Trump. In fact, looking at his left-wing philosophy it is extremely doubtful that he really gives a rat's hind end what Trump says or thinks.

The only supposed connection is that they both used the word "invasion." This is why I mention the nutjob who vehemently argued that Darwin influenced Hitler because both used the word "struggle" in their title of their of their books. You and those who claim that the shooter was influenced by Trump are no different. You both base everything on them using one word in common.

Yes you did, at length. It seems that you agree that Trump and the El Paso shooter were correct in their assessment of a violent Hispanic invasion being underway. The shooter merely acted upon this assessment. Isn't that what any patriotic citizen would do?

So, you are incapable of refuting the fact that many of the illegal immigrants are behaving like invaders. No surprise there.





1. Something I wrote in a fascinating discussion with Freezbee for the pre-crash tweb:

The person who had the the most impact on Hitler and Nazi thought in general was Houston Stewart Chamberlain. Though an Englishman by birth he lived in continental Europe since before he was a year old and was a thorough Germanophile becoming a German citizen during the midst of WWI and enthusiastically spoke out on behalf of the German government. He was also a vehement anti-Semite.

His two-volume book, Die Grundlagen des neunzehnten JahrhundertsThe Foundations as the "gospel of the Nazi movement." Hitler attended Chamberlain's funeral in January 1927 along with several highly ranked members of the Nazi party.

Truth. Ever the bane for YEC historic revisionists.



1. From Reenchanted Science: Holism in German Culture from Wilhelm II to Hitler by Anne Harrington; 1999, p. 106:

According to Chamberlain's Lebenslehre (Theory of Life) of 1896, the presence of Gestalt was what distinguished life from nonlife: "Everything that lives has Gestalt -- Life is Gestalt"

]

[Christianbookworm]

I honestly don't really have an opinion on the whole gun control debate thingy. I just don't like how it detracts from the victims.

[Teallaura]

Let me guess...Adrift, as a former Military Policeman, has a quite a bit of self-defense training, is still relatively young and/or still in decent shape, and/or is a large man (who by his size) or, because of all the above has little to fear from most threats that are NOT a gun? How close am I?

For what it's worth, Teallaura soooooo does not fit any of the above - and even when she was young and fit realized that she wouldn't win a knife fight...

But she would have a better chance of at least making enough marks for Quincy to do his thing!

[rogue06]

For what it's worth, Teallaura soooooo does not fit any of the above - and even when she was young and fit realized that she wouldn't win a knife fight...

But she would have a better chance of at least making enough marks for Quincy to do his thing!

Fun Fact: One of the secrets of winning a knife fight against a skilled opponent is being willing to offer up the arm not holding the knife as "meat" meaning deliberately using it to take a hit.

Yeah, I'm real fun at parties

[Teallaura]

Fun Fact: One of the secrets of winning a knife fight against a skilled opponent is being willing to offer up the arm not holding the knife as "meat" meaning deliberately using it to take a hit.

Yeah, I'm real fun at parties

Yeah, the other is being physically able to fight worth a darn - fit and able aren't the same thing. My 'strategy' would have been - once the fight was inescapable (not as stupid as I look!) - close, hang on and do as much damage as possible while being killed.

Not really a fan of that strategy - it only works out well if the guy is a wimp and can't stand pain.

Edit: How would you know? You always wake up the next day in the hospital wanting to know if CP still has your beer.

[rogue06]

Yeah, the other is being physically able to fight worth a darn - fit and able aren't the same thing. My 'strategy' would have been - once the fight was inescapable (not as stupid as I look!) - close, hang on and do as much damage as possible while being killed.

Not really a fan of that strategy - it only works out well if the guy is a wimp and can't stand pain.

Edit: How would you know? You always wake up the next day in the hospital wanting to know if CP still has your beer.

ETA: Btw, you'd be surprised how much a certain level of ruthlessness can overcome even a more skilled opponent -- as long as they aren't as ruthless themselves of course.

[TheWall]

ETA: Btw, you'd be surprised how much a certain level of ruthlessness can overcome even a more skilled opponent -- as long as they aren't as ruthless themselves of course.

I believe sun tzu's Art of War says that one should never force people into a corner because they will fight with a tenacity that puts everyone including themselves in danger.

He also said that someone who could resolve conflict without fighting was a better soldier.

Honestly, I believe that as spiderman said that great power comes with great responsibility

[Teallaura]

ETA: Btw, you'd be surprised how much a certain level of ruthlessness can overcome even a more skilled opponent -- as long as they aren't as ruthless themselves of course.

No, I wouldn't - bullied severely in school, figured that out pretty quickly. Not hard when 'more skilled' describes almost everyone and you're an ornery little brat once angry. Lost most fights - but made almost all pay for the win.

Doesn't help if they hit you from behind and keep running when you couldn't outrun a sleepy snail having a bad day.

[Cow Poke]

Fun Fact: One of the secrets of winning a knife fight against a skilled opponent is being willing to offer up the arm not holding the knife as "meat" meaning deliberately using it to take a hit.

Yeah, I'm real fun at parties

One of the less well kept secrets is to bring a gun to the knife fight, and don't allow them to get any closer than 6 or 7 meters.

[Cow Poke]

I believe sun tzu's Art of War says that one should never force people into a corner because they will fight with a tenacity that puts everyone including themselves in danger.

He also said that someone who could resolve conflict without fighting was a better soldier.

Honestly, I believe that as spiderman said that great power comes with great responsibility

And always leave your opponent a golden path of retreat?