Gun Control

[henry quirk]

It's not what you own or how you use it that's on the table.

You are on the table.

I glossed over “You are on the table” the other time I read these words. I just scratched my head wondering why you were talking about surgery and decided to let it go.

So, just for a lunkhead like me, could you elaborate?

It's not complicated: the folks who rule aim to keep rulin', and when everybody and his mother is packin', rulin' ain't easy.

[Immanuel Can]

It's not complicated: the folks who rule aim to keep rulin', and when everybody and his mother is packin', rulin' ain't easy.

That's quite true.

And when you say that, everybody thinks of the government itself, and they think, "How are you going to stand off a swat team?" The answer, of course, is that you're not...and certainly not alone. But as the government continues to fail or abdicate its responsibility to protect its citizens, it's mobs and criminals that you have to worry about. As we have seen, they are not shy about resorting to violence and theft under a political pretense. If the government's not going to do anything, and is just going to call all violence a "mostly peaceful protest," then you know you're on your own, when it comes to keeping your family safe.

My very Lefty friend in California, not a former gun owner at all, just went out and bought himself a home-defense shotgun. He didn't want to; but when he saw what was going on in his town, he knew he had to. So he asked me what model to buy, since he would have no idea. (I didn't advise the shotgun, but he chose it.) Then he took it out to a shooting range and learned how to use it. Because he knows that with the way the government is behaving, chances are good he could end up having to defend his homestead from the mobs, and from drug users and street people seeking quick cash...and maybe sooner than later. As we have already seen, the visible presence of one gun is very often enough to keep a mob or a home invader from trying something. Not even a large mob wants to take on a guy with a shotgun. So he knows his chances of ever having to use the gun are vastly increased by having one...and that's why he chose a very visible, very threatening model -- because he hopes never to have to use it. He hopes that its mere presence will make any invaders back off and decide there are much easier targets. Nobody wants a load of buckshot in his gut, even if he can't get them all.

That's the world we're in, at least where he lives. If you don't want your home ransacked and your family assaulted, you need to have a plan. The government will not help you. And if push comes to shove, you have to have a final answer to the criminals and the mobs.

So it's also not just a matter of who's ruling, but of what the dude who's ruling is or is not going to do for his citizens by way of law enforcement.

[henry quirk]

It's not complicated: the folks who rule aim to keep rulin', and when everybody and his mother is packin', rulin' ain't easy.

That's quite true.

And when you say that, everybody thinks of the government itself

They should cuz that's who & what I'm talkin' about.

39C2F514-4CE8-4483-9165-8D8348314C00.jpeg

[Skepdick]

Banning the AR-15 won’t solve the problem of gun deaths and injuries.

Banning the AR-15 will solve the problem of deaths and injuries by AR-15s.

It’s a start. Let’s do something to get started.

That's a pretty terrible strategy.

Banning Toyotas won't solve the problem of motorvehicle deaths and injuries.

Banning Toyotas will solve the problem of death and injuries by Toyotas.

But there's so many other cars to choose from. If you take my Toyota away I guess I'll have to buy something else.

[Immanuel Can]

Banning the AR-15 won’t solve the problem of gun deaths and injuries.

Banning the AR-15 will solve the problem of deaths and injuries by AR-15s.

It’s a start. Let’s do something to get started.

That's a pretty terrible strategy.

Banning Toyotas won't solve the problem of motorvehicle deaths and injuries.

Banning Toyotas will solve the problem of death and injuries by Toyotas.

But there's so many other cars to choose from. If you take my Toyota away I guess I'll have to buy something else.

That's actually a more commonsense answer than I would have expected. I've got to give you your props for that one.

[iambiguous]

It's not complicated: the folks who rule aim to keep rulin', and when everybody and his mother is packin', rulin' ain't easy.

That's quite true.

And when you say that, everybody thinks of the government itself

Okay, here we are. But forget about the government. Let's bring this gun control stuff back to the ultimate authority: God.

Now, with henry's God, He provided him with the capacity to follow the dictates of Reason and Nature in regard to things like the buying and selling of bazookas. Then He vamoosed.

As for Christians, it seems that you can be on either side of the fence here:

https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/vide ... n-control/

But for IC, whichever side you are on, there is Judgment Day.

So, does IC acknowledge that his own view on guns is just a political prejudice rooted existentially in dasein...that those Christinas who disagree with him are entitled to their own "personal opinion"? Or, on Judgment Day, had all True Christians best be packin'?

Then the part where he and henry hate the government in equal measure here, but henry damn well better accept Jesus Christ as his personal savior and be packin' on Judgment Day?

[henry quirk]

again with the script...

[iambiguous]

again with the script...

Come on henry, what's my script next to the Scripts provided to us by the flocks of sheep who ascribe one or another moral and political conviction to one or another God?

God and guns. There's either a connection here or there's not.

Same with immortality and salvation. There's IC's Script from the Christian God:

"And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?"

How does that not clearly state that even if you are packin' on Judgment Day given IC's "personal opinion" here, you still ain't going up if you don't believeth in Jesus Christ? Can your God guarantee everlasting life?

If there's a loophole here, spit it out.

Otherwise, like me, you are damned.

[commonsense]

Banning the AR-15 won’t solve the problem of gun deaths and injuries.

Banning the AR-15 will solve the problem of deaths and injuries by AR-15s.

It’s a start. Let’s do something to get started.

That's a pretty terrible strategy.

Banning Toyotas won't solve the problem of motorvehicle deaths and injuries.

Banning Toyotas will solve the problem of death and injuries by Toyotas.

But there's so many other cars to choose from. If you take my Toyota away I guess I'll have to buy something else.

OK, so you probably don’t want to solve the Toyota problem unless you can solve the motor vehicle problem.

I suppose it might take banning more weapons than only the AR-15 to do something about mass shootings.

[Immanuel Can]

So, does IC acknowledge that his own view on guns is just a political prejudice rooted existentially in dasein

Nobody knows what you mean by "dasein." It's your own undefined term. You refuse to say what it means.

So your question amounts to, "Does IC acknowlege his view...is rooted in ?"

One cannot even know how to answers such a question. It's not even coherent.

[promethean75]

Biggs is like Protagoras to the second power. He will absolutely strip you of all your personal philosophical certainty in ethics... or, at least show you how absurd your position is. Not so much what you believe, mind you - the staggering complexity and mystery that the universe is, etc. - but rather your insistence that you are 'right' in what you believe and that all rational people should/would believe the same.

that sonofabitch'll work on ya, that's for sure. he's the only guy i know that has willingly, purposely and with design, maintained argument with your old pal Satyr over at Knowthyself for longer than a year.

That's the relentless dedication of the trained objectivist killer, henry. I've known Biggs (on the fora) since 2002, and i bear witness to debates that'll ruin a man, turn em into a philosophical animal that gets a taste of intellectual blood and is changed forever.

In fact, I watched Biggs take on a whole team of guys led by a mexican kant objectivist defense lawyer (the guy was Mexican, i mean. Not Kant. Kant was Canadian) that went on for upwards of two years. It was perhaps this definitive battle that made of Biggs what he is today.

Fact is, Biggs never came home. He went AWOL and stayed in the intellectual jungle hunting for objectivists. Think Willem Dafoe

[henry quirk]

you are damned

mebbe so...if so: I'm: doin' a jail break

-----

He will absolutely strip you of all your personal philosophical certainty

I ain't seen evidence he's done diddly 'cept take up space

[henry quirk]

I suppose it might take banning more weapons than only the AR-15 to do something about mass shootings.

All you got to do is replace...

GUN-FREE ZONE

...WITH...

ARMED & TRAINED STAFF ON DUTY

...and actually have armed & trained staff on duty.

Do that and watch schools and malls and moviehouses fall right off the would-be shooter's list of favored targets.

[promethean75]

"ain't seen evidence he's done diddly 'cept take up space"

horror vacui, Henry. There is no such thing as 'space', therefore Biggs can't 'take it up'.

[iambiguous]

So, does IC acknowledge that his own view on guns is just a political prejudice rooted existentially in dasein

Nobody knows what you mean by "dasein." It's your own undefined term. You refuse to say what it means.

So your question amounts to, "Does IC acknowlege his view...is rooted in ?"

One cannot even know how to answers such a question. It's not even coherent.

Shameless! Absolutely shameless!!

Again, this sort of post would be expected over at ILP. But here?!

It's as though he stumbled onto Philosophy Now on the internet and thought it was this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_(brand)