Gun Control III - the Gunnening

[Licana]

…Because Russia’s are clandestine interventions with the end goal of undermining the national government

While the EU's interventions undermining national governments is good because...they aren't as clandestine?

and considering the end result of the referendum, it seems popular with the people.

So were the Transformers movies and the NSDAP. Being popular does not equate to being good nor righteous.

[Northern Davincia]

I define the state of nature as existing before organized societies/civilization.

Because clearly, cavemen had no laws governing their interactions with each other or other tribes.

The caveman could defend himself, what he had claimed as his own, transferred ideas, etc. The presence of basic rules do not automatically infringe on rights, but rules can exist which violate rights.

[Kowani]

…Because Russia’s are clandestine interventions with the end goal of undermining the national government

While the EU's interventions undermining national governments is good because...they aren't as clandestine?

This isn’t undermining a government, this is putting up requirements to do business.

and considering the end result of the referendum, it seems popular with the people.

So were the Transformers movies and the NSDAP. Being popular does not equate to being good nor righteous.

It is hard to strongarm a people into doing what they want.

[Licana]

This isn’t undermining a government, this is putting up requirements to do business.

Requirements made by the EU, yes. But I guess the choice between "comply with our regulations or you might find movement into and out of your landlocked country much more difficult." is neither strong-arming nor undermining.

It is hard to strongarm a people into doing what they want.

Are you intentionally missing the point?

[Kowani]

Because clearly, cavemen had no laws governing their interactions with each other or other tribes.

The caveman could defend himself, what he had claimed as his own, transferred ideas, etc. The presence of basic rules do not automatically infringe on rights, but rules can exist which violate rights.

Cavepeople has some personal possessions, yet the majority of things belonged to the tribe, not the individual. Freedom of speech, we don’t know, but considering the earliest organized societies to develop didn’t have it, it seems unlikely that the unorganized ones that preceded them did.

The rules are what establishes rights, only those who live in complete, singular isolation are not governed by them.

[Kowani]

This isn’t undermining a government, this is putting up requirements to do business.

Requirements made by the EU, yes. But I guess the choice between "comply with our regulations or you might find movement into and out of your landlocked country much more difficult." is neither strong-arming nor undermining.

Ironically, the justification came from the Swiss Parliament themselves, the EU didn’t do anything.

It is hard to strongarm a people into doing what they want.

Are you intentionally missing the point?

Considering you’ve yet to make one…

[Licana]

Ironically, the justification came from the Swiss Parliament themselves, the EU didn’t do anything.

And fucking over the brexit movement came from the British government themselves, doesn't change the fact that both of these acts were done to appeal to the EU.

Considering you’ve yet to make one…

Ah, so you are intentionally missing the point. In the interest of pretending that you intend to argue in good faith, I will directly restate the point I made (word for word) in my previous post, in large, unmissable bold lettering.

Being popular does not equate to being good nor righteous.

[Kowani]

Ironically, the justification came from the Swiss Parliament themselves, the EU didn’t do anything.

And fucking over the brexit movement came from the British government themselves, doesn't change the fact that both of these acts were done to appeal to the EU.

If so, they damn well failed, considering that the indecision in Britain is pissing off the EU.
As for the Swiss, it’s not strongarming if the EU isn’t actually twisting one’s arm.

Considering you’ve yet to make one…

Ah, so you are intentionally missing the point. In the interest of pretending that you intend to argue in good faith, I will directly restate the point I made (word for word) in my previous post, in large, unmissable bold lettering.

Being popular does not equate to being good nor righteous.

Very well. That wasn’t my argument.

[Northern Davincia]

The caveman could defend himself, what he had claimed as his own, transferred ideas, etc. The presence of basic rules do not automatically infringe on rights, but rules can exist which violate rights.

Cavepeople has some personal possessions, yet the majority of things belonged to the tribe, not the individual. Freedom of speech, we don’t know, but considering the earliest organized societies to develop didn’t have it, it seems unlikely that the unorganized ones that preceded them did.

The rules are what establishes rights, only those who live in complete, singular isolation are not governed by them.

Those who live in total isolation still have their rights. Private property must have existed prior to civilization, for the two cannot have begun simultaneously. I highly doubt ancient Athenians conceived of free speech in a vacuum.

[Licana]

Very well. That wasn’t my argument.

And yet,

Rights are what society decides they are, nothing more-and it seems that the Swiss have decided to change them.

I believe my sig covers this one.

Rights are functionally just privileges society has deemed important.

considering the end result of the referendum, it seems popular with the people.

You're obviously arguing in favor of a state undertaking a gun control action, and every post you've made (barring philosophical tangents about cavemen) indicates the principal reason behind your support of this measure is that it was popular. So if you're not intending to state "if popular -> then good," what are you trying to state?

[Kowani]

Cavepeople has some personal possessions, yet the majority of things belonged to the tribe, not the individual. Freedom of speech, we don’t know, but considering the earliest organized societies to develop didn’t have it, it seems unlikely that the unorganized ones that preceded them did.

The rules are what establishes rights, only those who live in complete, singular isolation are not governed by them.

Those who live in total isolation still have their rights. Private property must have existed prior to civilization, for the two cannot have begun simultaneously. I highly doubt ancient Athenians conceived of free speech in a vacuum.

Firstly, we need a definition of civilization. And thus we go to Sumer. A civilization with some private property, but still limited. Because one lives in society, civilized or not, their rights are dependent upon the rest of that society accepting said rights, or their ability to defend them. This is how it works.

Very well. That wasn’t my argument.

And yet,

Rights are what society decides they are, nothing more-and it seems that the Swiss have decided to change them.

I believe my sig covers this one.

considering the end result of the referendum, it seems popular with the people.

You're obviously arguing in favor of a state undertaking a gun control action, and every post you've made (barring philosophical tangents about cavemen) indicates the principal reason behind your support of this measure is that it was popular. So if you're not intending to state "if popular -> then good," what are you trying to state?

First: That it was not strongarming, if only because the people wanted it.
Second: Switzerland is a democracy, and thus this is a sign that the state works.
Third: That’s not my reason for supporting the measure.

[Licana]

Firstly, we need a definition of civilization. And thus we go to Sumer. A civilization with some private property, but still limited. Because one lives in society, civilized or not, their rights are dependent upon the rest of that society accepting said rights, or their ability to defend them. This is how it works.

Which seems to be a good argument against supporting gun control measures.

First: That it was not strongarming, if only because the people wanted it.

"because it's popular"

Second: Switzerland is a democracy, and thus this is a sign that the state works.

"because it's popular"

Third: That’s not my reason for supporting the measure.

And if that's all you have to say, then there's really no need to continue this discussion.

[Kowani]

Firstly, we need a definition of civilization. And thus we go to Sumer. A civilization with some private property, but still limited. Because one lives in society, civilized or not, their rights are dependent upon the rest of that society accepting said rights, or their ability to defend them. This is how it works.

Which seems to be a good argument against supporting gun control measures.

No, actually. Ignoring what the law actually does, not preventing anyone from getting guns (The Swiss proposal, among other things, requires regular training on the use of firearms, special waivers to own some semi-automatic weapons and serial number tracking system for key parts of some guns. Gun owners would have to register any weapons not already registered within three years, and keep a registry of their gun collections.) A massively armed populace is only workable without mass poverty or other instability, in which case they will result in anarchy.
Additionally, because society is what dictates what rights are and what are not, certain rights as decreed by society, legal or extralegal, may not be palatable to all.

[Northern Davincia]

Those who live in total isolation still have their rights. Private property must have existed prior to civilization, for the two cannot have begun simultaneously. I highly doubt ancient Athenians conceived of free speech in a vacuum.

Firstly, we need a definition of civilization. And thus we go to Sumer. A civilization with some private property, but still limited. Because one lives in society, civilized or not, their rights are dependent upon the rest of that society accepting said rights, or their ability to defend them. This is how it works.

That is how it works only according to you. Castaways do not lose any rights upon their separation from society.

[Kowani]

Firstly, we need a definition of civilization. And thus we go to Sumer. A civilization with some private property, but still limited. Because one lives in society, civilized or not, their rights are dependent upon the rest of that society accepting said rights, or their ability to defend them. This is how it works.

That is how it works only according to you. Castaways do not lose any rights upon their separation from society.

Yes, I apologize for that point. It was badly worded. Castaways do have unlimited rights (sort of.)

However, the majority of humans are not, and cannot be castaways.

[Northern Davincia]

That is how it works only according to you. Castaways do not lose any rights upon their separation from society.

Yes, I apologize for that point. It was badly worded. Castaways do have unlimited rights (sort of.)

However, the majority of humans are not, and cannot be castaways.

Indeed, but this leaves us with the matter of deciding which limitations on rights are reasonable and which are not. The limitations placed upon the Swiss people are unreasonable, in my opinion.

[Licana]

No, actually. Ignoring what the law actually does, not preventing anyone from getting guns (The Swiss proposal, among other things, requires regular training on the use of firearms, special waivers to own some semi-automatic weapons and serial number tracking system for key parts of some guns. Gun owners would have to register any weapons not already registered within three years, and keep a registry of their gun collections.)

I'm aware of what the proposed law does.

A massively armed populace is only workable without mass poverty or other instability, in which case they will result in anarchy. Additionally, because society is what dictates what rights are and what are not, certain rights as decreed by society, legal or extralegal, may not be palatable to all.

If my choice is between a government that resulted in a state of mass poverty and/or instability and armed anarchy, then I'll throw my hat in with the would-be anarchists. At least then I'd potentially have the power to defend myself and those that are important to me because, anarchy or not, someone will try to make you into prey if you're living in the conditions you describe.

[Kowani]

Yes, I apologize for that point. It was badly worded. Castaways do have unlimited rights (sort of.)

However, the majority of humans are not, and cannot be castaways.

Indeed, but this leaves us with the matter of deciding which limitations on rights are reasonable and which are not. The limitations placed upon the Swiss people are unreasonable, in my opinion.

Wrong. Firstly, it leaves us with the matter of deciding what rights people have. Then the limitations.

See, that’s somewhere else we disagree.

[Northern Davincia]

Indeed, but this leaves us with the matter of deciding which limitations on rights are reasonable and which are not. The limitations placed upon the Swiss people are unreasonable, in my opinion.

Wrong. Firstly, it leaves us with the matter of deciding what rights people have. Then the limitations.

See, that’s somewhere else we disagree.

In that case, people have their natural, individual rights, the same bestowed to a castaway. Rights that require active deprivation from another person are not genuine rights.

[Kowani]

Wrong. Firstly, it leaves us with the matter of deciding what rights people have. Then the limitations.

See, that’s somewhere else we disagree.

In that case, people have their natural, individual rights, the same bestowed to a castaway. Rights that require active deprivation from another person are not genuine rights.

Which are not rights, but rather, privileges.

[Northern Davincia]

In that case, people have their natural, individual rights, the same bestowed to a castaway. Rights that require active deprivation from another person are not genuine rights.

Which are not rights, but rather, privileges.

I believe we are in agreement on that.

[Pax Nerdvana]

How could we convince Congress to hand out letters of Marque?

[Hurtful Thoughts]

How could we convince Congress to hand out letters of Marque?

That's a presidential thing, actually.

So go ask Trump to allow you to haz a cannon.

BATF won't be able to stop you if you've got a letter from Trump to arm your fishing-boat to the gills.

[The Two Jerseys]

How could we convince Congress to hand out letters of Marque?

Tell them that a swarm of Iranian patrol boats is no match for a bigger swarm of rednecks in go-fast boats armed with chain guns and automatic 40 mike-mike launchers.

[The Chuck]

How could we convince Congress to hand out letters of Marque?

Tell them that a swarm of Iranian patrol boats is no match for a bigger swarm of rednecks in go-fast boats armed with chain guns and automatic 40 mike-mike launchers.

Actually... I have a couple friends who'd love to go grab a couple PKMs from Karachi, a Damen 1102 interceptor, and some body armor and go harass the Iranians... hell, didn't Trump name the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corp a Foreign terrorist group? If memory serves me correctly, it's open season on them...

Though with the 2A and gun rights, it would be a very interesting thing to see the govt. start issuing letters of Marque and Reprisal to subsidize the PMC scene.

I totally don't want to start a privateering group and start harassing North Korean and Iranian shipping