vibranium Posted December 25, 2015 Share Posted December 25, 2015 For most people, everything is ok. We know that. We agree. Just out of curiosity, do you stand for the position that right to bear arms means that everyone can own 50-calibre widowmakers and mount it on their cars? That is a deliberately extreme position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sylence Posted December 25, 2015 Share Posted December 25, 2015 Giving people the full control over their lives never have worked out for any community in the history and never will. there must be some restrictive rules to control people with different opinions and thoughts in every community, whether it's a group of 10 people or a country with millions of population. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VileTouch Posted December 25, 2015 Author Share Posted December 25, 2015 3 hours ago, vibranium said: For most people, everything is ok. We know that. We agree. Just out of curiosity, do you stand for the position that right to bear arms means that everyone can own 50-calibre widowmakers and mount it on their cars? That is a deliberately extreme position. what i wouldn't like is living in a place full of lunatics with widowmakers mounted on their cars and not having one myself. it's a vicious circle. if you outlaw guns...or encryption for that matter, the only ones that WILL use them are the criminals. and you can be sure they won't be using them responsibly. so how do you counter that? having the responsible gun owners outnumber (and probably outgun) the lunatics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vibranium Posted December 25, 2015 Share Posted December 25, 2015 That is a question shrouded in game theory. Right to bear arms for defence, and right to bear arms capable of mass destruction. There is a line there, somewhere. Advocates of breakable encryption or government backdoor appeal to this argument. I'm saying, weighing the pros and cons will be complicated. There are societies where there is no popular right to bear arms, which are functioning well. The analogy between guns and encryption is not perfect. Et cetera. It's complicated! We can't solve this problem one way or another, in a day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CODYQX4 Posted December 26, 2015 Share Posted December 26, 2015 7 hours ago, vibranium said: For most people, everything is ok. We know that. We agree. Just out of curiosity, do you stand for the position that right to bear arms means that everyone can own 50-calibre widowmakers and mount it on their cars? That is a deliberately extreme position. From my understanding, the 2nd amendment was intended that us citizens would be as well armed as any invading army soldier. If the concept of legal RPGs and .50 Cal terrifies you, let that be a reminder that humanity has escalated to that point. That we have created Nukes because we don't want to get in an RPG fight. Also, in a stable society, that hasn't devolved into 4th world hellhole or post-apocalyptic chaos, just how many people do you think actually want to blow your house up for no reason? I have an extremely negative view on most people (most people are fake backstabbing greedy assholes) but I know that these people who shoot up schools are rare, despite what the news wants you to believe. In a country with 350M people, even 0.00001% of the population = 3500 fucked up individuals, just a matter of scale. But they want to you to believe around every corner someone wants to spray you with an "assault weapon". When in reality, no true assault weapons are readily available. The AR LOOKS like a military weapon, but it's semi-auto only. Make a hunting rifle with more bullet storage and it's the exact same thing. By that logic we should have the right to Tanks, RPGs, and Fighter Jets. Also people with enough money and lawyers to fill out the paperwork can indeed get that stuff right now 100% legally. If a soldier could be trusted with it, then a citizen could. Of course, back then, everyone was on an equal footing. The founding fathers also expected that we would have to fight our own government regularly, and maybe by not doing this, we're in the position today where they take all our rights. Today they have stuff that'll kill you from orbit remotely yet you're terrified of some redneck mounting .50 Caliber guns on his jacked up pickup truck. So, I believe they'd be OK with it. 2nd amendment wasn't just about self defense. Obviously nobody needs an RPG to defend their home from a burglar, but maybe against a foreign invader, or maybe a government 20-30 years from now that continued this sickening path of corruption and devolved into some Nazi Germany on steroids. That idea terrifies some, but by rejecting it, then you're saying "well all they had is single shot muskets, then would have supported a ban on X", and that's the logic they use to say "well, peeping on them with a drone at home without a warrant isn't a search and seizure because back in 1776 a person had to show up and kick down a door". Any middle ground is just some arbitrary line drawn in the sand. They argued sticking a GPS tracker on your car without a warrant didn't infringe your 4th amendment, nor did hoovering up all cell traffic in an area, nor mass collecting the entire fucking internet, nor any privacy that they can't bypass. The same applies to guns. If you have a person that you can prove is a walking danger, to the point they need 24/7 surveillance, no right to vote, no right to bear arms, must live 1 mile away from everyone else, on a curfew, and is a pedo to boot, then they shouldn't be a part of society to begin with. Taking everyone's rights for one person and then saying "oh well you still have the right to bear arms, but only this specific gun and X amount of bullets and you can never carry it and you can never shoot it except here and must sign paperwork, oh and we get to barge in your house and also take that gun with the flick of a pen", well then you didn't have the right. Same thing with "free speech zones". You can criticize us but only in this isolated corner devoid of all human life where nobody will ever hear you, or we'll crack your skull in and arrest you. It's a convenient power grab done slowly, frog in boiling water style, using a few boogeymen to scare the masses into giving them up, then painting any moderate dissenter as an extremist. CA is extremely anti-gun and has some very restrictive laws, but obviously it isn't enough. Ban all guns and criminals will pay people to CNC them or learn themselves and only they will have them. Also, I think we'd have far less rights than we've manage to hold onto if we never had guns. History seems to point to massacre of the people after they get disarmed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vibranium Posted December 26, 2015 Share Posted December 26, 2015 My point was simply that you can't go to extremes. A line has to be drawn somewhere. (Of course, where we should draw that line is the bone of contention). Maybe 50-cal mounted on every car on the highway doesn't strike you as extreme. How about the right for every adult passenger to bear UZI assault rifles when they get on a domestic American flight? I hope you get what I'm trying to say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flitox Posted December 26, 2015 Share Posted December 26, 2015 On 25/12/2015 at 4:51 PM, saeed_dc said: Allahu Akbar ! of course not !! Saudi* ok that what i thought & understood so now you gotta explain me why he will be happy.... cuz for me, the guy is broke the law which in saudia is based more on their understand of the quran than anything else, so if the law says you must be killed if you're a drug dealer, it's more because it's the will of Allah. so if despite that he do not get killed, Allah cant be happy, according to their belief. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sylence Posted December 26, 2015 Share Posted December 26, 2015 17 minutes ago, flitox said: ok that what i thought & understood so now you gotta explain me why he will be happy.... cuz for me, the guy is broke the law which in saudia is based more on their understand of the quran than anything else, so if the law says you must be killed if you're a drug dealer, it's more because it's the will of Allah. so if despite that he do not get killed, Allah cant be happy, according to their belief. I meant God will be happy if those Saudis get killed for what they did, I wasn't serious about that though it was more like a joke So to explain a bit more I suggest you to read Quran online, this book which is the last holly book isn't in no where against holly Bible, it actually completes it, once you've read them both you'll understand this as well. God doesn't need its creates in order to make him happy or sad, because if he was to need something then he'd be incomplete, like us and other creatures, and that's against what he says: Say, "He is Allah , [who is] One, Allah , the Eternal Refuge. He neither begets nor is born, Nor is there to Him any equivalent." http://quran.com/112 http://quran.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VileTouch Posted December 26, 2015 Author Share Posted December 26, 2015 15 minutes ago, saeed_dc said: I meant God will be happy if those Saudis get killed for what they did, I wasn't serious about that though it was more like a joke So to explain a bit more I suggest you to read Quran online, this book which is the last holly book isn't in no where against holly Bible, it actually completes it, once you've read them both you'll understand this as well. God doesn't need its creates in order to make him happy or sad, because if he was to need something then he'd be incomplete, like us and other creatures, and that's against what he says: Say, "He is Allah , [who is] One, Allah , the Eternal Refuge. He neither begets nor is born, Nor is there to Him any equivalent." http://quran.com/112 http://quran.com ...and then you realize he doesn't need any religion or state to do anything for him or in his name, that he doesn't need our rules and conduct codes, because these don't apply to him... boom!. the more you think about it, the more you see the fallacy that all religions are, and that all the terrible things done throughout history were and still are all in the name of personal gain. ...merry christmas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sylence Posted December 26, 2015 Share Posted December 26, 2015 31 minutes ago, VileTouch said: ...and then you realize he doesn't need any religion or state to do anything for him or in his name, that he doesn't need our rules and conduct codes, because these don't apply to him... boom!. the more you think about it, the more you see the fallacy that all religions are, and that all the terrible things done throughout history were and still are all in the name of personal gain. ...merry christmas Yes exactly, he doesn't need any of them, but we need. we're incomplete so we need guidance like prophets and holly books. afaik the real pure religion isn't being applied anywhere but that doesn't mean we also should close our eyes on realities and move on. you never get anything good when you choose the easy way. btw when you read Quran you don't see things like what to wear or how to talk or not to join terrorists or cut the head of people (Saudis), it's up to the reader's mind and how he/she interprets and understands it. Quran is a book you don't need any prior knowledge for reading and understanding it. Merry Xmas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flitox Posted December 27, 2015 Share Posted December 27, 2015 22 hours ago, saeed_dc said: I meant God will be happy if those Saudis get killed for what they did, I wasn't serious about that though it was more like a joke So to explain a bit more I suggest you to read Quran online, this book which is the last holly book isn't in no where against holly Bible, it actually completes it, once you've read them both you'll understand this as well. God doesn't need its creates in order to make him happy or sad, because if he was to need something then he'd be incomplete, like us and other creatures, and that's against what he says: Say, "He is Allah , [who is] One, Allah , the Eternal Refuge. He neither begets nor is born, Nor is there to Him any equivalent." http://quran.com/112 http://quran.com ok thanks for the explanation! curiosity will probably makes me read the quran one day or another but i'm affraid it will be, like the bible a long boring read. no need to believe in god to behave correctly with others and if there is still a god, since you behave correctly with others, the day you die, he will like you and welcome you with open arms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sylence Posted December 27, 2015 Share Posted December 27, 2015 12 minutes ago, flitox said: ok thanks for the explanation! curiosity will probably makes me read the quran one day or another but i'm affraid it will be, like the bible a long boring read. no need to believe in god to behave correctly with others and if there is still a god, since you behave correctly with others, the day you die, he will like you and welcome you with open arms. You're so welcome! you'll definitely get tired if you try to read all of it in one day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.