Virginia Gun Law Debate

[laughing dog]

Careful ld, a person can't be a stated Libertarian and hold a position at the same moment of time. It is a physical law known as the Libertarian Exclusion Principle.

That non-principle isn't what is happening. I stated in my OP the exact argument that LD later made, and he is embarrassed about it to the point where he is desperate to change the subject.

The only "argument" I see in the OP is something about dominoes and tipping which I never made any argument resembling. Please point out what actual argument you made in the OP that you believe I repeated and how I repeated it. Without that, your claim appears seriously delusional.

 

[hurtinbuckaroo]

What does blackface have to do with any of this? Does the OP think non-blackface politicians wouldn’t have done the same thing?

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

There is no such thing as a "pre-existing" anything, so I'm not sure what you mean by that. Do you mean "god ordained" or something?

Just because some people use gods as the basis of natural rights doesn't mean that everyone who expresses a natural rights position is doing so from a theistic basis.

I don't see ANY gun control in any of that. All you've done is assert some things are just bad and bizarrely equated being able to say "You can't have that gun in my store" with someone's "pre-existing right" to buy as many handguns as they want every month.

I see absolutely nothing reasonable about insisting you have a "pre-existing right" to own 120 guns, so maybe you can expand on this "pre-existing right" thing, undertanding that "rights" are granted by government, not by gods?

I saw plenty of gun control in that, just the reasonable amount instead of going overboard the way they did in Virginia.

And again, just because some people use a theistic basis for natural rights doesn't mean that everyone who uses natural rights does so from a theistic basis. Government can recognize a right, protect a right, or violate a right, but it can't create a right. When you recognize that rights don't come from government you might have a better understanding of the issue.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Careful ld, a person can't be a stated Libertarian and hold a position at the same moment of time. It is a physical law known as the Libertarian Exclusion Principle.

That non-principle isn't what is happening. I stated in my OP the exact argument that LD later made, and he is embarrassed about it to the point where he is desperate to change the subject.

The only "argument" I see in the OP is something about dominoes and tipping which I never made any argument resembling. Please point out what actual argument you made in the OP that you believe I repeated and how I repeated it. Without that, your claim appears seriously delusional.

In bold you will find the part of my original post that reflects your statements on this issue.

Many Republican counties introduce "sanctuary county" resolutions. In theory Democrats like sanctuary resolutions because they used them on immigration law. In practice they don't because that was meant to be used on that issue and not represent consistent ideology. In theory Republicans dislike sanctuary resolutions because the Democrats used them on immigration law. In practice they do because that is meant to be used on this issue and not represent consistent ideology.

Any argument you make on any issue isn't designed to reflect any underlying belief system or consistency of thought. You will argue top down or bottom up at your convenience, depending on what issue your party told you to push. You will argue majoritarianism or rule by elite, if it pushes the issue party wants pushed. Your only consistency is that you have none.

 

[laughing dog]

The only "argument" I see in the OP is something about dominoes and tipping which I never made any argument resembling. Please point out what actual argument you made in the OP that you believe I repeated and how I repeated it. Without that, your claim appears seriously delusional.

In bold you will find the part of my original post that reflects your statements on this issue.

Many Republican counties introduce "sanctuary county" resolutions. In theory Democrats like sanctuary resolutions because they used them on immigration law. In practice they don't because that was meant to be used on that issue and not represent consistent ideology. In theory Republicans dislike sanctuary resolutions because the Democrats used them on immigration law. In practice they do because that is meant to be used on this issue and not represent consistent ideology.

Any argument you make on any issue isn't designed to reflect any underlying belief system or consistency of thought. You will argue top down or bottom up at your convenience, depending on what issue your party told you to push. You will argue majoritarianism or rule by elite, if it pushes the issue party wants pushed. Your only consistency is that you have none.

Fine, but I made no such arguments or statements that reflect such sentiments.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Any argument you make on any issue isn't designed to reflect any underlying belief system or consistency of thought. You will argue top down or bottom up at your convenience, depending on what issue your party told you to push. You will argue majoritarianism or rule by elite, if it pushes the issue party wants pushed. Your only consistency is that you have none.

Fine, but I made no such arguments or statements that reflect such sentiments.

When Koy said his position was the reasonable position, and I said my position was the reasonable position, and you reacted to only one of us, you did make "arguments or statements" that reflect such sentiments. That is why you've been trying to change the subject so desperately.

 

[laughing dog]

Any argument you make on any issue isn't designed to reflect any underlying belief system or consistency of thought. You will argue top down or bottom up at your convenience, depending on what issue your party told you to push. You will argue majoritarianism or rule by elite, if it pushes the issue party wants pushed. Your only consistency is that you have none.

Fine, but I made no such arguments or statements that reflect such sentiments.

When Koy said his position was the reasonable position, and I said my position was the reasonable position, and you reacted to only one of us, you did make "arguments or statements" that reflect such sentiments. That is why you've been trying to change the subject so desperately.

First, that has nothing to do with your alleged argument in the OP. Second, you're the one going on about something inconsequential (i.e. changing the subject) not me.

 

[SimpleDon]

I think that the reference to banning "dangerous" guns isn't an unintentional logical faux pas by the authors of the petition but a reference to the majority opinion in Heller v. Washington DC written by Justice Scalia in which he allowed the government to ban weapons too dangerous to be in the general population. If you want to find out what he meant by that you would have to resort to his favorite jurisprudence methodology, a seance, to find out what his original intent was.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

When Koy said his position was the reasonable position

I said no such thing. I said: "these [proposals] are all perfectly reasonable."

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

When Koy said his position was the reasonable position

I said no such thing. I said: "these [proposals] are all perfectly reasonable."

I paraphrased. Excuse me.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

When Koy said his position was the reasonable position

I said no such thing. I said: "these [proposals] are all perfectly reasonable."

I paraphrased. Excuse me.

No worries. Thank you for acknowledging it.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

I think that the reference to banning "dangerous" guns isn't an unintentional logical faux pas by the authors of the petition but a reference to the majority opinion in Heller v. Washington DC written by Justice Scalia in which he allowed the government to ban weapons too dangerous to be in the general population. If you want to find out what he meant by that you would have to resort to his favorite jurisprudence methodology, a seance, to find out what his original intent was.

I thought he just took a copy of the Bill of Rights, wiped his ass with it and then read the fecal creases.

 

[SimpleDon]

I thought that in another gun control thread pro-gunners here agreed ...

1) that we have so many gun deaths in the US not because we have so many guns but because of an undefined flaw in the American culture.

2) since we can't change our culture or at least the government can't or shouldn't change it ...

3) we are doomed to have to endure all of the gun deaths.

I agree that 1) is at least part of the problem. Other countries have many guns per capita without the suicide and homicide problems that we have.

I disagree with 2), like the climate, as we are constantly reminded in yet another thread, our culture is constantly changing. Often these changes are brought about by the government.

And I can't believe that we have to endure all of these gun deaths, especially since it seems that we are currently doing it because the gun manufacturers want to sell more guns and the gun rights enthusiasts are a critical voting block of movement conservatism supporting its goal to suppress wages of the poor and middle class to increase the incomes of very rich.

It occurred to me that 1) is probably the best reason to ban the private ownership of guns. At the very least to work toward it. If the American culture is so violent and so many of our people aren't mature enough to behave responsibly around guns I believe that this is enough reason to take away all of the guns. Barry Goldwater said that if we banned the private ownership of guns it would take forty years for it to take effect. He said this in 1964.

 

[SimpleDon]

I think that the reference to banning "dangerous" guns isn't an unintentional logical faux pas by the authors of the petition but a reference to the majority opinion in Heller v. Washington DC written by Justice Scalia in which he allowed the government to ban weapons too dangerous to be in the general population. If you want to find out what he meant by that you would have to resort to his favorite jurisprudence methodology, a seance, to find out what his original intent was.

I thought he just took a copy of the Bill of Rights, wiped his ass with it and then read the fecal creases.

In Heller, he violated his own doctrine of original intent. The writers of the Bill of Rights rejected a statement of the right of individuals to own guns preferring to limit the federal government's ability to restrict state militias to favor what they didn't want, a standing army. They deferred to the states on the question of the private ownership of guns, which was valid until the passage of the 14th amendment. This is the absurdity of the original intent principle. A lot has changed since 1790.

 

[ZiprHead]

Virginia Declares State of Emergency After Armed Militias Threaten to Storm the Capitol

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/939b3y/virginia-declares-state-of-emergency-after-armed-militias-threaten-to-storm-the-capitol

The governor said law enforcement had intercepted “extremist rhetoric” similar to the lead-up to Charlottesville days before pro-gun activists are holding a rally.

In response to what he described as “credible intelligence” of threats of violence at an upcoming gun rights rally in Richmond, Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam has declared a state of emergency and will temporarily ban individuals from carrying firearms on Capitol grounds.

The governor said at a press conference Wednesday that authorities believe “armed militia groups plan to storm the Capitol” during the January 20 rally.

He also said that law enforcement had intercepted threats and “extremist rhetoric” similar to what was observed prior to the violent Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville in August 2017. “We will not allow that mayhem and violence to happen here,” he said.

 

[Worldtraveller]

I hope this isn't the new normal.

Also, I'm glad I work on a military base with really tight security.

 

[Worldtraveller]

Per usual, these are all perfectly reasonable

By a sufficiently unreasonable definition of "reasonable". Calling those proposals "reasonable" is asserting the conclusion as the premise and an exercise in absurdity.

I support reasonable gun control, I do not support that legislation.

Which parts don't you find reasonable (or are you saying that Koy misrepresented what's actually in the bill)?

Please be specific.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Per usual, these are all perfectly reasonable

By a sufficiently unreasonable definition of "reasonable". Calling those proposals "reasonable" is asserting the conclusion as the premise and an exercise in absurdity.

I support reasonable gun control, I do not support that legislation.

Which parts don't you find reasonable (or are you saying that Koy misrepresented what's actually in the bill)?

Please be specific.

I am sure that Koy did not misrepresent what is in the bill. He finds the proposals reasonable, I find them all unreasonable. I gave a description of what I think is reasonable gun control already.

Meanwhile... From Vice

Virginia Declares State of Emergency After Armed Militias Threaten to Storm the Capitol

Gun rights advocates are planning to have a rally. Governor Blackface decided to characterize it as "storming the capitol" and is wanting to declare a state of emergency as a result. A great example of irrational phobia and scare mongering. Vice, being friendly to the anti-gun zealots, dutifully reported the fear as fact.

 

[ZiprHead]

Which parts don't you find reasonable (or are you saying that Koy misrepresented what's actually in the bill)?

Please be specific.

I am sure that Koy did not misrepresent what is in the bill. He finds the proposals reasonable, I find them all unreasonable. I gave a description of what I think is reasonable gun control already.

I saw it. I didn't see much of anything that could be considered control.

Meanwhile... From Vice

Virginia Declares State of Emergency After Armed Militias Threaten to Storm the Capitol

Gun rights advocates are planning to have a rally. Governor Blackface decided to characterize it as "storming the capitol" and is wanting to declare a state of emergency as a result. A great example of irrational phobia and scare mongering. Vice, being friendly to the anti-gun zealots, dutifully reported the fear as fact.

So you just know in your heart, like a religious zealot, that there was no actual threat?

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

I know that unless there is secret intel and a secret threat, there is absolutely no evidence that this is an actual threat. The religious zealots know deep in their heart that this is going to be "storming the capitol" instead of a mere rally.