I hate to be That Guy, but I've literally never heard a Liberal argue that "only the government should have guns." I've also almost never heard them argue that "no-one should have guns."
The argument I hear most often, far-and-away, is that "no-one, including the government, should have 'high-powered' guns."
I'm not saying that's right or wrong, and defining "high-powered" is its own story. But if I misconstrue someone else's arguments then I'm just as much of a problem as they are.
Other urls found in this thread:
They hate any form of order
you are wrong.
i have heard it.
sage.
I personally have never heard it.
It's cringy nonsense and it's bullshit. I don't care what you 'hear' and I don't care what any liberal pretend to argue. Their position is objectively that the State--a group of people with tanks, nuclear weapons and fighter jets--should disarm me.
Period. No other details are relevant to the conversation. So you are That Guy, and like That Guy always does, you've made a retarded semantic "argument" to waste more of my fucking time while making excuses for criminals who want to murder me.
Apologize. Or no, don't, you'll probably find a way to fuck that up too. Just delete the thread and stop posting.
Do you really think that's true?
All these ad hominem attacks make it impossible for us to change anything in this country.
This is a terrible way to argue. When have you ever convinced someone of anything by yelling?
>conservatives like to make things up
Stop the presses lmao. You realize they literally invented fake news? The term came about because they were making shit up about Hillary and Trump just coopted it. Republicans are literally known for making stuff up without an verifiable facts behind it. They literally just pull stuff out of their ass without any sort of proof. They’ll take nothing and turn it into a fake something by inventing things that never happened. They’ll distort the truth in order to come up with their own incorrect version of events. It’s like they don’t even know what’s real, they just create fake versions of things.
I think this is a terrible argument. Liberals and Conservatives have both made up fake news. This mentality of "they're all the same" is the cause of so much destruction in this country.
Then you clearly have not been listening.
We may have been listening to different people.
I’m don’t trust anybody in this country. I don’t want to compromise or negotiate with anybody I don’t trust to honor the agreement. They want the police and military to just talk people out of crime. They live in a fantasy world.
I do not need to or want to convince you of anything, I am pointing out for others and my own satisfaction that you're an imbecile. That matter is already settled, it is factual.
You have a content-free opinion here.
Fuck off, retard. I have the right to weapons and to defend myself with lethal force regardless of whether or not the government has guns or chooses to use them. More importantly, suggesting that NOBODY has guns is even more stupid than just the government having them. At least that is theoretically possible. But if the government doesn't have guns, how are they supposed to disarm the populace that you want disarmed? They can't.
I met a kid at a party who unironically said that no one should be allowed to guns and keep them at their house and the only case where someone should be allowed them is like a system where your local police keep all of them and you go and get them out for the day to hunt and then hand them back in once the day's over. there were several kids who wholeheartedly agreed with him too.
I know it's only an anecdote, but so is your post. Plenty of liberals are steering in the direction of "no one should be allowed to own guns."
So if everybody is disarmed, what happens when someone comes with a gun?
who gives a fuck what you have or have not heard? the only thing that matters is these fags have lawyers that argue for complete disarmament in front of the supreme court. anything else is irrelevant
I'm not asking you to convince me. I'm wondering about your worldview in general. Do you intend to try to convince others of your views? If you are expressing them, I think that implies that is indeed your intent. I am pointing out a fundamental flaw in your approach.
I'm not claiming to know the right answer. I'm bothered by Conservatives misconstruing the arguments of Liberals, which is something that Liberals do to Conservatives. It seems neither side is above the other.
We be nice to them and they realize that they shouldn’t be violent. White Liberals believe everyone wants to be a white liberal, but society or some bullshit prevents them from being one. They think just letting in murderous savages will suddenly see that being a “socially conscious” neutered beta-boy is the best way to live and convert?
>rifle.pic
>concerned stupid
shilling is pointless in Sup Forums. You're wasting your time and your employers money
To be fair, that was a "kid at a party." What bothers me is when a responsible adult of one belief misconstrues the arguments of an adult of another belief.
I am not arguing one way or the other. I am arguing that misconstruing the argument of the other side is keeping us from making progress.
Almost no liberal politicians have suggested any form of firearm restriction for police or military. Can you even name a single one? Suggesting that the "argument of liberals" is that nobody should have guns, including the government, is just fucking wrong, because it's not even a significant minority of liberal politicians have even suggested it.
"Making progress?" What the fuck are you even talking about? They want to disarm us, we tell them to piss up a rope. That's the end of the conversation.
Saying "this is what some lawyers think" is very different from saying "this is what Liberals think." Painting with such a broad brush is very damaging to the strength of this country.
Sounds like you mostly talk to reasonable people. I have a liberal coworker, who when hearing someone might carry a gun to protect themselves in the shit hole that is Portland, says "wow I wouldn't want him or anyone to ever carry a gun, I'm glad he didn't".
These people exist, and they don't believe in the natural right to self defense. Give an inch, lose a light year.
Ive heard the concept if "abolishing the second amendment" thrown around and im liberal as hell by Sup Forums standards
I never hear americans say that the government shouldnt have guns though
Why must you paint with a broad brush? Isn't this one of your greatest frustrations with Liberals: that they twist facts and misrepresent what you're saying?
>but I've literally never heard
You haven't been around enough then. May I suggest your nearest college?
>arguing with logic and reason
Youre in for a long night
This is a "cop out." By saying someone is a shill you absolve yourself of the responsibility to engage in meaningful discourse, which is how progress is made. I think you don't actually wish for positive change; I think you just enjoy feeling like you have the moral high ground.
I don’t care anymore. The civic order of the USA is a sham. I do not want compromise or progress. I want to be left alone.
im not saying "this is what some lawyers think." im saying they argue for complete disarmament in front of the supreme court. are you such a retard you dont know the difference between what a person thinks and what a person does? what they do is what matters
You're specifically referencing Liberal politicians. I would argue that most Liberal politicians do not accurately represent most Liberals, just as most Conservative politicians do not accurately represent most Conservatives. I think this is a fundamental flaw in Democracy.
Why don't you try to convince them of the importance of having arms, rather than just telling them to piss off? If you can convince them, they will stop bothering you.
Almost no liberal says that the government or police should be disarmed. Almost all of them want civilians to be. We paint with a broad brush because it fucking fits.
So how do you geniuses expect the government to take everyone's guns away?
I suppose I do mostly talk to fairly-well-educated people. I think that's a fair point: my own perception is limited.
>I would argue that most Liberal politicians do not accurately represent most Liberals
You would be fucking wrong. And you're still wrong about your unsubstantiated claim that any significant proportion of liberals want the state weakened, or that somehow this would justify disarming the populace even if it was true.
Attrition. Make them nearly impossible to buy, and 150 years down the road the ruling class gets their wet dream.
Or so they think.
I suppose we're talking to different groups of people. Here I am, painting with a broad brush myself. I'm calling the kettle black.
I am college-educated, but I have been out of college for many years, which may mean I'm out-of-touch with what is currently being discussed on-campus.
Welp, dunno what to tell you there senpai.
Go talk to the crazies on both sides and ramp up that narrow perception.
Is it better or worse to not have the conversation at all?
Thank you for explaining. If you do not wish to participate in trying to change things for the better, I understand your stance.
I've heard this argument all the time.
Sage.
Because they operate on a fundamentally different understanding of the universe. I carry to protect myself from individual criminals. If I say this, they would say, "we can just provide welfare to reduce crime!", not that it would, but more importantly, it illustrates that they do not view the world through an individual lens. They think that people are entirely the product of circumstance, that everyone is fundamentally good, that individual rights to not outweigh perceived (but actually fake) "safety".
I meant "think" in the sense of, "these are the arguments they are presenting." My point is that these lawyers may not accurately reflect the views of most others.
Well educated in sniffing their own farts maybe. Anyone with an actual fucking brain would realize that "nobody should have guns" is a child's understanding of guns and crime.
>government shouldnt have high-powered guns
>the military must now fight with pistols
This is interesting. My perception has always been that Liberals want no-one to have guns. For instance, radical Liberals are very anti-police, from which I think it would follow they do not want the police to have guns. I suspect the media has been motivated to get us to focus heavily on thinking, "The other side doesn't want me personally to have guns." The real argument should be, "Should anyone have guns?"
I am not in favor of excessive gun control. I am bothered by how the gun control argument is taking place.
Of course the government will still have guns. You can't be this stupid.
>the real argument should be, should anyone have guns
See, you try and present yourself as intelligent and then you say something dumb. Y tho
I am not arguing the populace should be disarmed. I am arguing about the way in which that argument is happening.
Do most Conservative politicians accurately represent most Conservatives?
If you've ever noticed, many actually argue that police and government/police shouldn't have guns along with complete abolishment of military and police. While some do still want massive police states instead, just unarmed. Basically just bigger government in any form. As reference I'm mostly thinking of Fergusen when I think of people saying no police. These ideas spread fucking everywhere though.
Pretty much living in lala land at any rate.
I agree though not every one of them argue for this, but I think I know who's side they would be on push comes to shove. Of course I'm just a fuckin cannuck but these ideas get around y'know. Your country isn't the only one trying to gungrab.
>meet friend in Canada on Korean mmo
>his dad has a huge pot farm somewhere in Northern Canada
>fucking tons of rifles
I was jelly.
I'm not arguing for or against gun control, for or against welfare. I am arguing against the usage of the word "they," as you have used it here. This reduces a massive group of people to a single personality, which is disingenuous and anti-intellectual. If you said "some" I would have no qualms with what you said.
>This is interesting. My perception has always been that Liberals want no-one to have guns.
Well it's incorrect
>For instance, radical Liberals are very anti-police, from which I think it would follow they do not want the police to have guns.
Most of them aren't retarded enough to think that they can accomplish their goals of civilian disarmament and wealth redistribution without force. They do hate the police, but more what they do (enforce laws which they consider tyrannical, like drug possession and the speed limit) than for just existing at all.
>The real argument should be, "Should anyone have guns?"
The answer is yes. It's not any smarter of a question, and even less applicable to reality than "should civilians be allowed to own guns, including semi auto rifles", which is also "yes".
The well-educated people I talk to comprise those both in favor and those against gun control.
I do not believe this is the argument. Consider: what about tanks, fighter planes, etc?
>AR15
>'high powered'
lol
Could you please clarify? I don't understand what was dumb.
Thank you for your thoughtful response.
>I'm not arguing for or against gun control
Yes you are. Every angstrom of space you give them is favoring gun control.
>I am arguing against the usage of the word "they," as you have used it here.
Too bad. You're fucking wrong.
>This reduces a massive group of people to a single personality, which is disingenuous and anti-intellectual.
No, it summarizes the political stance of a group of people who have voluntarily come together specifically because of their overlap on such stances.
>If you said "some" I would have no qualms with what you said.
Because you're a fucking gun grabber.
Can you clarify what you mean by a "smarter question"? Is a smart question one without an obvious answer?
This is a game of just the tip. They want the tiniest inch so that they can take a mile. No one believes you that you only want ‘high-powered’ guns. You want hand guns too. Don’t lie.
Your proposition, stating that the argument should be "should anyone have guns?"
That question doesn't even make sense in this reality we live in; guns have existed, do exist, and will continue to exist long after you and I are dead. There is no scenario, ever, in which every human being and government entity gets rid of their firearms.
So your stance is that by trying to engage in meaningful debate, I am instead contributing to the problem?
Feinstein has been saying it over 30 years youtu.be
I am not posting to argue about gun control. I am posting to talk about how that argument takes place. Personally, I am not in favor of excessive gun control.
I don't care. Don't take my rights cause your a faggot. Gas yourself kike
dude there is no meaningful debate to be had. do the words SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED mean anything at all to you? you understand words dont you?
Your suggestion that liberals are saying "no one should have guns" instead of "only the government should have guns" implies that you believe that the former is more intelligent or reasonable than the latter. If not, why even make the thread? But both are stupid and incorrect.
>not in favor of excessive gun control
>just tiny bits here and there that eventually add up to excessive gun control
>trust me I'm an intellectual
You continue to disappoint me.
Thank you for explaining, I see your point. I oversimplified the question. I think it should be, "By what standards should we evaluate whether or not a person may possess a weapon?"
If even the gov didn’t have high powered weapons we’d be invaded.
Literally yes. Liberals don't know anything about guns and don't believe in personal responsibility. To attempt to engage in a "meaningful debate" is to suggest that they are qualified for such a debate, when they are plainly not.
You imply that the Constitution is a document completely without flaws; that it is a fundamental truth. Otherwise the beliefs expressed in the Constitution are still up for debate.
Do you believe the Constitution is flawless?
It's a moot point. If someone wants a gun they can easily obtain one. Legal limitations only exist to deter people who want to follow the law for its own sake, which is exactly the subpopulation you should want to be armed.
He just explained his worldview but you missed it because it was too difficult for you to comprehend. Euthanize yourself retard.
>.223/5.56
>high powered
Nigga, wut
I do think the former is more reasonable, because it implies power should be removed equally from all Americans, rather than that power should just be removed from civilians. Regardless of whether or not the argument is correct, it is more equal.
Yeah. That blue dress was some breddy gud fake news...
What do you think ammendments to the constitution are?
They have been starting the argument for gun confiscation just recently, testing the water.
The goal is to outlaw features and designs 1 by 1 until the laws are so rigid that its nothing but a migraine and a half to get a firearm. Once it gets to that point the interest in self defense will go down and people will not care anymore. Once the 2nd Amendment is gone freedom of speech will go next. Once you cant speak about certain topics and you cant even defend yourself you will be helpless.
no i believe you're pretending a debate should be had when again for the 3rd time people argue for complete disarmament. not one single time ever have i seen or heard anything about amending the constitution. you know, the proper way.
That’s why the constitution has been
>amended
I have not defined what I mean by "excessive." Frankly, I am not certain. I do not claim to know all the right answers on the gun control debate. However, I think I can make very valid arguments about the way in which the debate takes place, as can we all by virtue of being human.
Well. Go back and listen to Diane Feinstein and the guy from GOA some 20 years ago. “If it were up to me I would tell everyone to TURN THEM IN”. YOU CLEARLY MISSED THAT ONE.
I’ve heard it numerous times liar.
Sage.
This is a very nihilistic worldview. But if your aim is to live in isolation and to not attempt to effect any greater change, then I cannot argue with it. I'm just disappointed that would be anyone's attitude.
I understood his worldview. I wanted clarification on why that was his worldview.
That is my point. Then, whether they "shall not be infringed" is up for debate, as is the rest of the contents of the Constitution.
5.56 where not even designed to kill people on impact. They rounds and lighter and they determined that completely injuring a man to the point of needing medical attention is better than killing because it will cause the desire for another combatant to pull him out of combat.
2 birds one stone.
You always double tap on the shooting range because the impact of two rounds hitting someone causes ruptures and trauma which does indeed kill.
Liberals use fancy words like "Killing Machine", "High Powered", etc.
You could call a crossbow high powered compared to a short bow.
>I do think the former is more reasonable
Then you are fucking stupid. How do you intend to take guns without force? It would take nothing short of nation wide martial law to disarm the citizenry.
But also, it would not make things "more equal", even if it were possible. If everyone can own guns, then everyone is capable of lethal force. If they do not, then the most physically strong or numerous are distinctly advantaged.
As much as it hurts to admit it the “right answer” on guns is ‘LEAVE THE FUCKING GUNS ALONE”. Punishing law abiding people for the behavior of criminals is insane and we are done even listening to it being discussed.
Because what is the importance of bearing arms?
Everybody talks about self defense but the second amendment is not concerned with self defense, per say.
It is concerned with securing a free state.
At this point we reach a fundamental disagreement in philosophy.
Do you think governments can become tyrannical? Most people would say yes.
If you found yourself living under a tyrannical government, would you fight it by any means necessary?
Supporters of the 2a say yes which is why they support the 2a. They want every tool possible to be available to them.
Opponents of the 2a say no because chances are if you fight against a tyrannical government your gonna die. And what’s the point of freedom if your not alive?
Any reasonable discussion around the 2a will always boil down to that disagreement to which there is no correct answer.
>Liberal politicians do not accurately represent most Liberals
Go read the sticky about the "no true scotsman" fallacy