This is how you do a protest

Woko Haram said:
A semiauto rifle is not a "machine gun." Still, your argument could just as easily be used to say that I could defend myself with a knife. Why do I need a gun, if I have knife?

We could take it a step further and say that you don't need a knife if you know martial arts. And you don't need martial arts if you hire personal security.

Rights aren't based on "need", because needs are dependent on resources and are as mutable as the situation allows for.
Click to expand...

I know, I was just using a machine gun as an example.

What should be legal is always subjective. The way I see it, a gun can be used by anyone to defend themselves. If you're really old or have health issues, defending yourself with a knife could be difficult, whereas using a gun just requires pulling the trigger. Now the downside to being able to kill people really easily, is that you can kill people really easily. So the least we can do is restrict the kind of guns and gun accessories that people can have.
 
Woko Haram said:
Given recent court rulings, that's not how it works though. We can't really depend on cops to much degree because of the fact that the Supreme Court has ruled that they aren't obligated to protect us. That's what Smarter was referring to.

Given that context, arming yourself with more than just bolt action guns with small magazines makes sense.
Click to expand...

Yes, and I agreed with him. Cops aren't legally required to protect us, but it is their job, and if a cop doesn't do their job, they are (at least in theory) fired.

And because I don't think we should completely trust cops, I'm find with people owning basic guns to protect themselves. But you don't need an AR-15 or an AK-47 with a long magazine to defend yourself. People get those guns to kill large packs of people at once.
 
Woko Haram said:
Deplatforming is basically an admission that you don't believe in the marketplace of ideas. If that concept is erroneous, then there's no point to having free speech.
Click to expand...

I actually do agree with that. However, I also understand why people want to deplatform really dangerous ideas that will lead to real-world persecution. It's easy for us to talk about this here in an extremely low-stakes situation, but it's different when you have Faith Goldy on stage being applauded by hundreds of people who believe what she's saying.

But yeah, even with that being said, I don't like deplatforming.
 
Woko Haram said:
SWAT teams do handle terror situations, but they are a small contingent of overall police. The average cop isn't that heavily armed.
Click to expand...

Which is good, but cops do have access to weapons that the rest of us don't. They're also allowed to carry guns in areas that the rest of us aren't. Part of having police is giving them a level of power the rest of us don't have.
 
StoneByStone said:
And yet we haven't lost our freedom. So there ya go, all of the Incels can calm down and go back to masturbating to Belle Delphine.
Click to expand...

OH-OH, Stone is sperging out and having to resort to name calling and insults.

095ea45e2311cd42867eb1923bf858c3.gif
 
StoneByStone said:
Yes, and I agreed with him. Cops aren't legally required to protect us, but it is their job, and if a cop doesn't do their job, they are (at least in theory) fired.

And because I don't think we should completely trust cops, I'm find with people owning basic guns to protect themselves. But you don't need an AR-15 or an AK-47 with a long magazine to defend yourself. People get those guns to kill large packs of people at once.
Click to expand...
you do understand what the intent of the 2nd Amendment is, right?
 
StoneByStone said:
:laugh:

No, it's called having laws. Cops still have limitations on what they can do.
Click to expand...

having laws is one thing, but when you have a segment of the population, known as government, that can do things that we the people can't, can own things that we the people can't, then it is indeed tyranny......................
 
StoneByStone said:
I know, I was just using a machine gun as an example.

What should be legal is always subjective. The way I see it, a gun can be used by anyone to defend themselves. If you're really old or have health issues, defending yourself with a knife could be difficult, whereas using a gun just requires pulling the trigger. Now the downside to being able to kill people really easily, is that you can kill people really easily. So the least we can do is restrict the kind of guns and gun accessories that people can have.
Click to expand...

We already do that by making fully automatic weapons illegal, unless you have a FFL or if you pay an exorbitant amount for a really old one.
 
StoneByStone said:
Yes, and I agreed with him. Cops aren't legally required to protect us, but it is their job, and if a cop doesn't do their job, they are (at least in theory) fired.

And because I don't think we should completely trust cops, I'm find with people owning basic guns to protect themselves. But you don't need an AR-15 or an AK-47 with a long magazine to defend yourself. People get those guns to kill large packs of people at once.
Click to expand...

If that were true, then we'd have a lot more mass shootings than we currently do. There are thousands upon thousands of those owned by the public right now. Also, most mass shootings are done with handguns.
 
StoneByStone said:
I actually do agree with that. However, I also understand why people want to deplatform really dangerous ideas that will lead to real-world persecution. It's easy for us to talk about this here in an extremely low-stakes situation, but it's different when you have Faith Goldy on stage being applauded by hundreds of people who believe what she's saying.

But yeah, even with that being said, I don't like deplatforming.
Click to expand...

I hear where you're coming from, but I'm glad we agree on the general principle at least.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top