IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 8th September 2022, 09:39 AM   #1
gnome
Penultimate Amazing
 
gnome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 13,305
2nd amendment and protection

This quote in another thread got me thinking.

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
Exactly none of that antidiscrimination protections, no employment protections and so forth. Really nothing to protect the man in the street from the depredations of the rich and powerful, as god intended.
I sense that there is a large faction in conservative politics that says, "You don't need all those regulations, you have the right to bear arms to protect yourself." But I think the greatest threats ordinary people face from the powerful happen at the stroke of a pen. The ability to present armed resistance, or even, optimistically, a rebellion, misses the development of bulwarks against ever needing to resort to that.

I would rather fight back in courtrooms and town halls and never need to pick up a firearm.
__________________

gnome is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th September 2022, 09:45 AM   #2
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 41,315
The United States government has ~1,350,000 active duty troops and another ~800,000 in reserve status. It has tanks, rockets, missile, nuclear weapons, stealth bombers, cruise missile, submarines, fighter jets, and a partridge in a pear tree.

Cletus is going to do exactly what with his pump action 12 gauge?
__________________
"If everyone in the room says water is wet and I say it's dry that makes me smart because at least I'm thinking for myself!" - The Proudly Wrong.
JoeMorgue is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th September 2022, 09:47 AM   #3
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 33,162
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
The United States government has ~1,350,000 active duty troops and another ~800,000 in reserve status. It has tanks, rockets, missile, nuclear weapons, stealth bombers, cruise missile, submarines, fighter jets, and a partridge in a pear tree.

Cletus is going to do exactly what with his pump action 12 gauge?
I mean, they managed to storm the Capitol with chairs and pointy sticks.
__________________
"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes.
"Itís easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." -- Mark Twain, maybe.
Upchurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th September 2022, 09:55 AM   #4
arayder
Master Poster
 
arayder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 2,853
Originally Posted by gnome View Post
This quote in another thread got me thinking.



I sense that there is a large faction in conservative politics that says, "You don't need all those regulations, you have the right to bear arms to protect yourself." But I think the greatest threats ordinary people face from the powerful happen at the stroke of a pen. The ability to present armed resistance, or even, optimistically, a rebellion, misses the development of bulwarks against ever needing to resort to that.

I would rather fight back in courtrooms and town halls and never need to pick up a firearm.
Some imagine that a well armed citizenry would use their weapons to overthrow or resist a totalitarian communistic government gone mad.

But let us suppose that the January 6th insurrection had been successful . . .
arayder is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th September 2022, 10:02 AM   #5
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Canada, eh?
Posts: 19,066
Originally Posted by gnome View Post
I sense that there is a large faction in conservative politics that says, "You don't need all those regulations, you have the right to bear arms to protect yourself." But I think the greatest threats ordinary people face from the powerful happen at the stroke of a pen. The ability to present armed resistance, or even, optimistically, a rebellion, misses the development of bulwarks against ever needing to resort to that.

I would rather fight back in courtrooms and town halls and never need to pick up a firearm.
I think its been said before on this forum....

Even if the "right to bear arms" actually could protect people's freedoms (it probably wouldn't, as other people said, since the military is so much better equipped than what a civilian would have).... In a practical sense it wouldn't matter. Why? Because the people who are most eager to "exercise their second amendment" are also the type of people who would be standing there cheering if and when there was some sort of fascist takeover of the government. They wouldn't be fighting back... they'd be egging on those staging the coup.

Remember the McCloskeys? Remember Rittenhouse? The BLM protests were about ending police abuses of minorities. But did the McCloskeys or Rittenhouse pick up weapons in order to help end that police abuse? Nope... they pointed them at the protesters themselves.
__________________
Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer

I'm Mary Poppin's Y'all! - Yondu

We are Groot - Groot
Segnosaur is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th September 2022, 10:22 AM   #6
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 52,865
Originally Posted by gnome View Post
This quote in another thread got me thinking.



I sense that there is a large faction in conservative politics that says, "You don't need all those regulations, you have the right to bear arms to protect yourself." But I think the greatest threats ordinary people face from the powerful happen at the stroke of a pen. The ability to present armed resistance, or even, optimistically, a rebellion, misses the development of bulwarks against ever needing to resort to that.

I would rather fight back in courtrooms and town halls and never need to pick up a firearm.
And of course for those who believed in the second amendment in that way, why don't they ever argue that the civil rights movement needed to be more violent in its opposition to Jim Crow? I mean this position should respect and support political violence even if they do not agree with the position being advocated because the violence is the means to solve this kind of issue.

But that would require them to apply their ideas to actual real world situations.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th September 2022, 10:30 AM   #7
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 52,865
If Rosa Parks had a gun would that have helped desegregate the busses?
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th September 2022, 10:55 AM   #8
Olmstead
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 1,208
When a rich man uses his power to enrich himself at my expense, I can use my power and rob him at gunpoint.

It doesn't work, because I'm not supposed to do the second part.
Olmstead is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th September 2022, 12:19 PM   #9
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Nor Flanden
Posts: 36,398
https://www.gocomics.com/doonesbury/2022/08/28
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
Mojo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th September 2022, 12:38 PM   #10
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 52,228
Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
Even if the "right to bear arms" actually could protect people's freedoms (it probably wouldn't, as other people said, since the military is so much better equipped than what a civilian would have).... In a practical sense it wouldn't matter.
...
Remember Rittenhouse?
I do. He protected his rights against people who attacked him and tried to kill him. The right to bear arms worked.

Police aren't the only people you need to protect your rights from. And given that police cannot be held legally responsible for not protecting you, the ability to protect yourself seems rather important to me.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th September 2022, 01:04 PM   #11
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Stacyhs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 26,713
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
I do. He protected his rights against people who attacked him and tried to kill him. The right to bear arms worked.

Police aren't the only people you need to protect your rights from. And given that police cannot be held legally responsible for not protecting you, the ability to protect yourself seems rather important to me.
If Rittenhouse wasn't there with his damn AR15 style rifle in the first place, he wouldn't have needed to protect himself. He killed a man who grabbed his rifle barrel and then was chased down by others who had seen him kill a man. THEN he had to protect himself

This is what happens when people walk around with damn guns and rifles channeling their inner "I'm a bad ass" fantasies.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th September 2022, 01:12 PM   #12
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 52,865
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
I do. He protected his rights against people who attacked him and tried to kill him. The right to bear arms worked.

Police aren't the only people you need to protect your rights from. And given that police cannot be held legally responsible for not protecting you, the ability to protect yourself seems rather important to me.
Just like all those brave medal of honor winners at wounded knee. Big time heroics there, makes america proud!
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th September 2022, 03:16 PM   #13
autumn1971
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 3,851
Originally Posted by Olmstead View Post
When a rich man uses his power to enrich himself at my expense, I can use my power and rob him at gunpoint.

It doesn't work, because I'm not supposed to do the second part.
Well I sure didnít expect Ziggurat to be the first to agree with your proposal
__________________
'A knave; a rascal; an eater of broken meats; a base, proud, shallow, beggardly, three-suited, hundred-pound, filthy, worsted-stocking knave; a lily-livered, action-taking knave, a whoreson, glass-gazing, superservicable, finical rogue;... the son and heir of a mongral bitch: one whom I will beat into clamorous whining, if thou deniest the least syllable of thy addition."'
-The Bard
autumn1971 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th September 2022, 03:24 PM   #14
Venom
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: United States
Posts: 5,970
"government overreach" to me is of secondary concern when it comes to this.

I fear what people can do in mobs, and when the mob is out to get you firearm is the equalizer.
Venom is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th September 2022, 03:59 PM   #15
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 52,228
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
If Rittenhouse wasn't there with his damn AR15 style rifle in the first place, he wouldn't have needed to protect himself.
She shouldn't have been wearing that dress.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th September 2022, 04:01 PM   #16
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 52,228
Originally Posted by Olmstead View Post
When a rich man uses his power to enrich himself at my expense, I can use my power and rob him at gunpoint.
What exactly does this mean? What does and does not qualify?
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th September 2022, 04:15 PM   #17
mumblethrax
Species traitor
 
mumblethrax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 3,285
Voting with your gun has the same problem that voting with your dollar does--somebody has a lot more votes than you do. It also has the additional problem of being kind of murder-y.

At some point we should really try voting with our votes.
mumblethrax is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th September 2022, 04:27 PM   #18
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Stacyhs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 26,713
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
She shouldn't have been wearing that dress.
That has got to be the most pathetic attempt at a comparison I've ever read.

See if you can understand the difference:

A man doesn't rape a woman because of what she's wearing. She can be wearing a burkah or a dress up to her ass. It doesn't matter to a rapist.

Rittenhouse shot and killed two people and wounded another because he had a damn AR15 style rifle with him which started the entire sequence of events.

Ya know, Zig...sometimes it's better not to say anything.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th September 2022, 04:47 PM   #19
tyr_13
Penultimate Amazing
 
tyr_13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 17,234
Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
I think its been said before on this forum....

Even if the "right to bear arms" actually could protect people's freedoms (it probably wouldn't, as other people said, since the military is so much better equipped than what a civilian would have).... In a practical sense it wouldn't matter. Why? Because the people who are most eager to "exercise their second amendment" are also the type of people who would be standing there cheering if and when there was some sort of fascist takeover of the government. They wouldn't be fighting back... they'd be egging on those staging the coup.

Remember the McCloskeys? Remember Rittenhouse? The BLM protests were about ending police abuses of minorities. But did the McCloskeys or Rittenhouse pick up weapons in order to help end that police abuse? Nope... they pointed them at the protesters themselves.
Exactly. They don't need the weapons to fight the government; they are just waiting for the government to look the other way while they use them on their fellow citizens. They're brown shirts in waiting.
__________________
Circled nothing is still nothing.
"Nothing will stop the U.S. from being a world leader, not even a handful of adults who want their kids to take science lessons from a book that mentions unicorns six times." -UNLoVedRebel
Mumpsimus: a stubborn person who insists on making an error in spite of being shown that it is wrong
tyr_13 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th September 2022, 05:39 PM   #20
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 52,228
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
That has got to be the most pathetic attempt at a comparison I've ever read.

See if you can understand the difference:

A man doesn't rape a woman because of what she's wearing. She can be wearing a burkah or a dress up to her ass. It doesn't matter to a rapist.

Rittenhouse shot and killed two people and wounded another because he had a damn AR15 style rifle with him which started the entire sequence of events.

Ya know, Zig...sometimes it's better not to say anything.
Wait... are you under the impression that if a man DID rape a woman because of what she wore, this would be any kind of excuse or that she would be at fault? Because if not, then the comparison is still valid, even if you think it's only hypothetical.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th September 2022, 06:53 PM   #21
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 33,162
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Wait... are you under the impression that if a man DID rape a woman because of what she wore, this would be any kind of excuse or that she would be at fault? Because if not, then the comparison is still valid, even if you think it's only hypothetical.
I know this counter to the right wing echo chamber narrative, but Rittenhouse isnít the victim in the analogy, Zig.
__________________
"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes.
"Itís easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." -- Mark Twain, maybe.
Upchurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th September 2022, 10:55 PM   #22
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Stacyhs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 26,713
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Wait... are you under the impression that if a man DID rape a woman because of what she wore, this would be any kind of excuse or that she would be at fault? Because if not, then the comparison is still valid, even if you think it's only hypothetical.
Sigh.



Anyone else want to take a stab at explaining this to Zig?

Last edited by Stacyhs; 8th September 2022 at 10:56 PM.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th September 2022, 01:30 AM   #23
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Nor Flanden
Posts: 36,398
Originally Posted by Venom View Post
"government overreach" to me is of secondary concern when it comes to this.

I fear what people can do in mobs, and when the mob is out to get you firearm is the equalizer.

What if the mob is exercising its 2nd Amendment rights?
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
Mojo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th September 2022, 02:27 AM   #24
Venom
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: United States
Posts: 5,970
Originally Posted by Mojo View Post
What if the mob is exercising its 2nd Amendment rights?
I think the important part is they are aware that you are.
Venom is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th September 2022, 02:49 AM   #25
Norman Alexander
Penultimate Amazing
 
Norman Alexander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Gundungurra
Posts: 12,366
Originally Posted by Venom View Post
I think the important part is they are aware that you are.
And by "important" you mean "irrelevant". Armed mob comes at you and you have a gun (or two)? You will last only until somebody in that mob manages to shoot you. Which is to say, with so many of them, no time at all.
__________________
...our governments are just trying to protect us from terror. In the same way that someone banging a hornetsí nest with a stick is trying to protect us from hornets. Frankie Boyle, Guardian, July 2015
Norman Alexander is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th September 2022, 03:04 AM   #26
Venom
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: United States
Posts: 5,970
Originally Posted by Norman Alexander View Post
And by "important" you mean "irrelevant". Armed mob comes at you and you have a gun (or two)? You will last only until somebody in that mob manages to shoot you. Which is to say, with so many of them, no time at all.
Most mobs of ordinary folks are not prepared or willing to get into bloody battles. They want an easy target to victimize.
Venom is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th September 2022, 03:09 AM   #27
Norman Alexander
Penultimate Amazing
 
Norman Alexander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Gundungurra
Posts: 12,366
Originally Posted by Venom View Post
Most mobs of ordinary folks are not prepared or willing to get into bloody battles. They want an easy target to victimize.
And that is exactly what a single opponent is to a mob.
__________________
...our governments are just trying to protect us from terror. In the same way that someone banging a hornetsí nest with a stick is trying to protect us from hornets. Frankie Boyle, Guardian, July 2015
Norman Alexander is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th September 2022, 03:11 AM   #28
Crazy Chainsaw
Philosopher
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 7,070
Originally Posted by gnome View Post
This quote in another thread got me thinking.



I sense that there is a large faction in conservative politics that says, "You don't need all those regulations, you have the right to bear arms to protect yourself." But I think the greatest threats ordinary people face from the powerful happen at the stroke of a pen. The ability to present armed resistance, or even, optimistically, a rebellion, misses the development of bulwarks against ever needing to resort to that.

I would rather fight back in courtrooms and town halls and never need to pick up a firearm.
I hope they manage too take us back too 1776, their was no Second Amendment in 1776, so if the conservative Right take us back too 1776 we can take the guns from the Idiots.
Crazy Chainsaw is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th September 2022, 05:38 AM   #29
Olmstead
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 1,208
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
What exactly does this mean? What does and does not qualify?
Environmental damage is a simple one. It's hard to quantify how many people the Koch brothers managed to kill using their money and influence, but shooting them in self-defense would have been a prudent decision.

There are subtler ways though. The more money you have, the easier it is to manipulate the market so that you
make a profit without providing anything of value, making it harder for people that DO provide value to live.
Olmstead is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th September 2022, 06:55 AM   #30
Venom
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: United States
Posts: 5,970
Originally Posted by Norman Alexander View Post
And that is exactly what a single opponent is to a mob.
Not when that single person is capable of inflicting losses on a ragtag group not totally committed to a firefight.
Venom is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th September 2022, 07:09 AM   #31
gnome
Penultimate Amazing
 
gnome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 13,305
Honestly I don't mean to spur a debate about how effective being armed is for defense against a physical attack. Depending on the situation it may or may not be and I'm not inclined to contradict others' decisions about how to defend their home.

I'm more thinking about what it takes to keep government and powerful interests at bay so that you don't HAVE to get into a firefight over it.
__________________

gnome is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th September 2022, 07:10 AM   #32
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 52,228
Originally Posted by Olmstead View Post
Environmental damage is a simple one. It's hard to quantify how many people the Koch brothers managed to kill using their money and influence, but shooting them in self-defense would have been a prudent decision.
If you can't quantify the damage, then you can't quantify the blame. Nor are they the only beneficiaries. You likely are too.

Quote:
There are subtler ways though. The more money you have, the easier it is to manipulate the market so that you
make a profit without providing anything of value, making it harder for people that DO provide value to live.
What do you mean, "manipulate the market"? Most trading for profit comes at the expense of other traders. And here's a dirtly little secret: trading for profit is a self-limiting process: the more you do it, the smaller the margins become. And it only works at scale if you're successfully allocating investment resources into productive uses. That doesn't make it harder for people who "provide value" to live, it makes it easier, because that means productive jobs are funded.

Now for the second dirty secret: there are profitable misallocations of resources. They come largely from government interventions.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th September 2022, 07:13 AM   #33
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 52,228
Originally Posted by Mojo View Post
What if the mob is exercising its 2nd Amendment rights?
You have a 2nd amendment right to bear arms. That doesn't confer the right to shoot anyone you want. That isn't part of the 2nd amendment. If an armed mob is shooting people that don't deserve to be shot, the problem isn't that they have guns, but that they are shooting people that don't deserve to be shot. And a mob doesn't need guns to attack and kill people, so keeping guns out of the hands of a mob doesn't actually keep you safe.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th September 2022, 07:18 AM   #34
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 52,228
Originally Posted by Venom View Post
Not when that single person is capable of inflicting losses on a ragtag group not totally committed to a firefight.
Mobs often are not. Yes, even an unarmed mob can definitely still kill an armed individual. But who among the mob is going to go first? Who among the mob will take the bullet so that the rest of the mob can overwhelm this individual? If no one among the mob is willing to die for the mob, then an armed individual may survive against it.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th September 2022, 07:19 AM   #35
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 41,315
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Wait... are you under the impression that if a man DID rape a woman because of what she wore, this would be any kind of excuse or that she would be at fault? Because if not, then the comparison is still valid, even if you think it's only hypothetical.
8:39 AM, 9/8/2022. Ziggurat compares a mass murderer to rape victims.
__________________
"If everyone in the room says water is wet and I say it's dry that makes me smart because at least I'm thinking for myself!" - The Proudly Wrong.
JoeMorgue is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th September 2022, 07:23 AM   #36
lomiller
Penultimate Amazing
 
lomiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 12,547
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
I do. He protected his rights against people who attacked him and tried to kill him. The right to bear arms worked.

Police aren't the only people you need to protect your rights from. And given that police cannot be held legally responsible for not protecting you, the ability to protect yourself seems rather important to me.
No he didn't, he killed people because someone threw a gym bag near him. His defense was that he thought "they might hurt him" Is someone in the crowd had decided to shoot Ritternhouse in the head, they would have been entitled to the exact same defense he used and would have been found not guilty if judged to the same standards.

Not that you conservatives would ever accept judging conservatives and non-conservatives by the same standards.
__________________
"Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"
lomiller is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th September 2022, 07:27 AM   #37
lomiller
Penultimate Amazing
 
lomiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 12,547
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
If you can't quantify the damage, then you can't quantify the blame. Nor are they the only beneficiaries. You likely are too.
Which is one more reason why libertarian economics conservatives embrace always fail. Just more right wing incompetence putting peoples lives and livelihood in danger.
__________________
"Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"
lomiller is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th September 2022, 08:25 AM   #38
ahhell
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 4,634
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
The United States government has ~1,350,000 active duty troops and another ~800,000 in reserve status. It has tanks, rockets, missile, nuclear weapons, stealth bombers, cruise missile, submarines, fighter jets, and a partridge in a pear tree.

Cletus is going to do exactly what with his pump action 12 gauge?
Same thing as the Taliban I imagine.
ahhell is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th September 2022, 09:36 AM   #39
Venom
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: United States
Posts: 5,970
Originally Posted by gnome View Post
Honestly I don't mean to spur a debate about how effective being armed is for defense against a physical attack. Depending on the situation it may or may not be and I'm not inclined to contradict others' decisions about how to defend their home.

I'm more thinking about what it takes to keep government and powerful interests at bay so that you don't HAVE to get into a firefight over it.
I think ultimately what's needed is a more educated populace so everyone can actually fight with the pen.
Venom is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th September 2022, 10:36 AM   #40
rdwight
Graduate Poster
 
rdwight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 1,000
Protection is going mean different things depending on location of the person. Rural areas have more wildlife threats to consider, as well as extremely long response times from police. High crime urban areas generally have extreme limits on carry licenses but people living there that are exposed to crime regularly will have a different outlook on needing some personal protection on their person or in their home than those outside looking in. You can quote all the statistics you want about this being counterproductive and more likely to cause injury than help, personal experiences is what will drive people.
rdwight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:27 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.