How did we go 24 pages w/o a gun control debate?

[Bluth Corporation]

According Bluth, however, if you live anywhere there is a government, there are tyrants.

Please don't pretend I said something I didn't; thanks.

[Der Teutoniker]

According Bluth, however, if you live anywhere there is a government, there are tyrants.

Actually, that is not correct. Bluth was stating that if you live somewhere with restrictions to your freedom, you are living under a tyrant. I personally would go that far myself, but it really isn't that abstract of a view... it's a lot more reasonable than the "right-wing terrorists are EVERYWHERE!" thread.

[Farnhamia]

According Bluth, however, if you live anywhere there is a government, there are tyrants.

Please don't pretend I said something I didn't; thanks.

Just trying to make sense of your terse declarations, is all.

[Phenia]

This is incorrect. All rights are absolute.

That is not an argument.

Yes, it is.

No, it is simple assertion. Just like what "Yes, it is," that's merely asserting that you're correct.

Saying that you are right is not an argument that you are right.

And doing it over and over and over again is not an argument either, it is only really annoying.

Who's copy-and-pasting?

I see you missed the point. Evidently, it's useless to communicate with you at all. You are going on ignore from now on.

[Der Teutoniker]

According Bluth, however, if you live anywhere there is a government, there are tyrants.

Please don't pretend I said something I didn't; thanks.

Just trying to make sense of your terse declarations, is all.

Actually, you intentionally skewed them to make them sound more ridiculous.

[Galloism]

According Bluth, however, if you live anywhere there is a government, there are tyrants.

Please don't pretend I said something I didn't; thanks.

But you said taxes are a form of tyranny.

All governments levy taxes in some form or another.

Therefore, all governments are tyrannical.

[Farnhamia]

According Bluth, however, if you live anywhere there is a government, there are tyrants.

Actually, that is not correct. Bluth was stating that if you live somewhere with restrictions to your freedom, you are living under a tyrant. I personally would go that far myself, but it really isn't that abstract of a view... it's a lot more reasonable than the "right-wing terrorists are EVERYWHERE!" thread.

I didn't see that thread out there. And you ought to go check the actual thread, apparently the poor old deranged guy had a pretty extensive record.

[Der Teutoniker]

[quote="Phenia"]No, it is simple assertion. Just like what "Yes, it is," that's merely asserting that you're correct.

Saying that you are right is not an argument that you are right.

And doing it over and over and over again is not an argument either, it is only really annoying.

The argument "All rights are absolute" is a... wait for it... argument. All an argument is, is a statement of belief. "I'm right" isn't, for example, and argument, but "All rights are absolute" is.

[Rhodmhire]

Gun control doesn't work. I say when something is illegal--it raises crime. The way to lower the crime is to make the thing legal.

Guns.

Drugs.

Alcohol.

And so forth.

We have the right to own guns, to protect our right to live, and in case we need to form militias (which I believe we may need to do once again, sooner than we think) as was done in the Revolutionary War.

The point is, you can either have police/military, criminals and the people own guns, or you can have police/military and criminals own guns.

Because the people may not always be able to get them.

But criminals will almost always be able to get guns. No law is going to stop that, criminals break laws, remember?

Give the people a chance against criminals, and their own government if it really comes to that point again in history.

[Der Teutoniker]

According Bluth, however, if you live anywhere there is a government, there are tyrants.

Actually, that is not correct. Bluth was stating that if you live somewhere with restrictions to your freedom, you are living under a tyrant. I personally would go that far myself, but it really isn't that abstract of a view... it's a lot more reasonable than the "right-wing terrorists are EVERYWHERE!" thread.

I didn't see that thread out there. And you ought to go check the actual thread, apparently the poor old deranged guy had a pretty extensive record.

You missed the entire point. The OP of the right-wing terror-based thread was exaggerating the threat of right-wing terrorists because of one crazy old dude, I understand he had quite a record, and I did read part of that thread.

But way to not actually argue the point I made, a subtle concession I suspect?

[Der Teutoniker]

According Bluth, however, if you live anywhere there is a government, there are tyrants.

Please don't pretend I said something I didn't; thanks.

But you said taxes are a form of tyranny.

All governments levy taxes in some form or another.

Therefore, all governments are tyrannical.

So, you're saying that because all governments currently levy taxes, that the only governemnt possible, ever, would have to levy taxes? No situation could ever occur in which a government did not levy taxes? That seems to be a bit of a stretch.

[Saige Dragon]

Sorry, but "modern usage" according to wikipedia is not the end-all.

He is clearly arguing an alternative definition of tyrant, you don't have to agree, but all you are arguing is that his personal connotation is wrong... which is kind of foolhardy.

Fine. His personal connotation however is counter to the general definition of tyrant:

Tyrant
Pronunciation:
\ˈtī-rənt\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
Middle English tyraunt, from Anglo-French tyran, tyrant, from Latin tyrannus, from Greek tyrannos
Date:
14th century

1 a: an absolute ruler unrestrained by law or constitution b: a usurper of sovereignty
2 a: a ruler who exercises absolute power oppressively or brutally b: one resembling an oppressive ruler in the harsh use of authority or power

The Queen and the government of Canada do not fit the definition above as much as we Canadians like to complain or think. Canada is not run by tyrants. Bluth doesn't live in Canada, Bluth is not a Canadian citizen. To tell me that I live under a tyrant is foolhardy. Now that we are sufficiently off-topic, this argument is over. If Bluth has a problem with my argument in regards to gun control, he'll have to come up with something better than tyrants who are out to get me.

[Farnhamia]

Actually, that is not correct. Bluth was stating that if you live somewhere with restrictions to your freedom, you are living under a tyrant. I personally would go that far myself, but it really isn't that abstract of a view... it's a lot more reasonable than the "right-wing terrorists are EVERYWHERE!" thread.

I didn't see that thread out there. And you ought to go check the actual thread, apparently the poor old deranged guy had a pretty extensive record.

You missed the entire point. The OP of the right-wing terror-based thread was exaggerating the threat of right-wing terrorists because of one crazy old dude, I understand he had quite a record, and I did read part of that thread.

But way to not actually argue the point I made, a subtle concession I suspect?

I would concede that that's what Bluth meant but he said I was putting words in his mouth, so ....

[Der Teutoniker]

Sorry, but "modern usage" according to wikipedia is not the end-all.

He is clearly arguing an alternative definition of tyrant, you don't have to agree, but all you are arguing is that his personal connotation is wrong... which is kind of foolhardy.

Fine. His personal connotation however is counter to the general definition of tyrant:

Tyrant
Pronunciation:
\ˈtī-rənt\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
Middle English tyraunt, from Anglo-French tyran, tyrant, from Latin tyrannus, from Greek tyrannos
Date:
14th century

1 a: an absolute ruler unrestrained by law or constitution b: a usurper of sovereignty
2 a: a ruler who exercises absolute power oppressively or brutally b: one resembling an oppressive ruler in the harsh use of authority or power

The Queen and the government of Canada do not fit the definition above as much as we Canadians like to complain or think. Canada is not run by tyrants. Bluth doesn't live in Canada, Bluth is not a Canadian citizen. To tell me that I live under a tyrant is foolhardy. Now that we are sufficiently off-topic, this argument is over. If Bluth has a problem with my argument in regards to gun control, he'll have to come up with something better than tyrants who are out to get me.

Nope, but I think Bluth made pretty clear his personal definition of tyrant, arguing about different definitons serves no one.

[Galloism]

So, you're saying that because all governments currently levy taxes, that the only governemnt possible, ever, would have to levy taxes? No situation could ever occur in which a government did not levy taxes? That seems to be a bit of a stretch.

Explain, on even a basic level, how a government can operate without taking in any income.

[Der Teutoniker]

I would concede that that's what Bluth meant but he said I was putting words in his mouth, so ....

You did. You changed the meaning of his words considerably. You explained him as having said things he didn't say, in other words, 'putting words in his mouth'.

[Der Teutoniker]

So, you're saying that because all governments currently levy taxes, that the only governemnt possible, ever, would have to levy taxes? No situation could ever occur in which a government did not levy taxes? That seems to be a bit of a stretch.

Explain, on even a basic level, how a government can operate without taking in any income.

Donated time? Government owned properties? I'm not saying there should'nt be any taxes, or that it would work well, merely that anti-taxes does not mean anti-government, you're confusing the argument.

[Saige Dragon]

Nope, but I think Bluth made pretty clear his personal definition of tyrant, arguing about different definitons serves no one.

And personal definitions do not make concrete arguments.

[Secruss]

I got nothing to say about England's laws. I don't live there, so I can't take part.

Surely you can discuss another country's laws without living there?

Nope. It's called meddling. I can talk about ideology and ideas behind things.

Guns are required for the overthrow of tyrants and resisting invading armies (for guerrillas and regular soldiers).

The government has to have taxes. Unless we're talking about autocratic communism/a state planned and operated economy.

Tyrants are dicks. They meddle, commit genocide, have no checks or balances, absolute control, and are all around evil. How about that?

[Der Teutoniker]

Nope, but I think Bluth made pretty clear his personal definition of tyrant, arguing about different definitons serves no one.

And personal definitions do not make concrete arguments.

They do if you're arguing opinion.

[Farnhamia]

I would concede that that's what Bluth meant but he said I was putting words in his mouth, so ....

You did. You changed the meaning of his words considerably. You explained him as having said things he didn't say, in other words, 'putting words in his mouth'.

I'm sure that'll be the last time that happens in NSG.

He called me on it, end of story.

[Galloism]

Donated time?

That'll work well. How many people do you think will willingly donate their time to the government? After all - you can't compel them, as that would also be tyrannical.

Government owned properties?

Like government owned corporations that produce the government's income? Interesting thought, but the costs for running a government are enormous, and it would take one hell of a company (or series of companies) to produce sufficient income to run a government. For example, the US had a federal budget last year was 3.6 trillion dollars.

I'm going to repeat that. It was $3,600,000,000,000. By comparison, Microsoft (the strongest company in the world, as far as i know) had a gross income of $60,420,000,000, with a net profit of $17,681,000,000. Their profit was 0.5% of the federal budget. I'm not saying it couldn't be done, but we would see a government-run share of businesses unlike anything we have ever seen.

I'm not saying there should'nt be any taxes, or that it would work well, merely that anti-taxes does not mean anti-government, you're confusing the argument.

I'm sorry, but I fail to see how a government can operate without levying taxes some way in some form. Either a value-added tax, an income tax, a corporate tax, tariffs, whatnot... I'm not sure how you can operate a government without them in some form.

[Saige Dragon]

They do if you're arguing opinion.

Hardly. But we're off topic enough as it is. If would like to continue this, do it elsewhere.

[Icelavic]

Depends, I would say the government has no right to take your guns away....

However if your arsenal starts to out step the US military, then there are problems...

How about if you are more heavily armed then the Vatican Guards...

The real question is, Who shouldnt be more heavily armed than the Vatican Guards? Dont they use swords and spears?

I believe the ceremonial swill guards have pikes. The real ones are packing shit.

[The Cat-Tribe]

Neither the Second Amendment nor any natural right to bear arms is absolute.

This is incorrect. All rights are absolute.

Just like with free speech or any other right, there are some limitations on the right.

Not legitimately.

In the ground-breaking case of District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. ___ (2008), SCOTUS made clear for the first time that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm. BUT the Court limited the scope of its decision to the possession and legal use of handguns. FURTHER, the Court was very clear that such a right was far from absolute or applied to all weapons

Irrelevant. The Supreme Court is not the arbiter of our rights; objective moral principle is.

*pats silly Randroid on the head and walks away laughing*