NJ Senators On Guns: "Confiscate! Confiscate! Confiscate!"

Runs back to post 32......

 

"The right" is actually two ideologies. Conservative and Libertarian -- though, granted, Libertarian is a little more broad on the spectrum than Conservative. But they've both been what they are for a good, long while.

No, from what I've observed, it's the left who continuously rebrand themselves. And why do they do it? Same reason any con artist changes aliases.

 

But are there places in Vegas where you can go get the full auto gay experience for $100?

Asking for a friend.

 

My philosophy is, and always has been "leave me the fuck alone".

I'm liberal when they're for leaving you the fuck alone.

Pot legalization? That's leaving people the fuck alone.

Gay rights? That's leaving people the fuck alone.

Abortion rights? That's leaving people the fuck alone.

"Confiscate! Confiscate! Confiscate!", isn't leaving people alone.
That's fucking with people.
I don't like it when power fucks with people.

Unless it's fucking with people who are fucking with people.
That just restores the natural state of "leave me the fuck alone".

Trust-bust the banks, and lock up muggers and rapists.

People minding their own business?
Leave 'em the fuck alone.
I don't care what utopia you're trying to make.
Fuck utopia.

I'm not libertarian, because they're too often for giving corporations "fuck with you", powers.
Um, NO.
Fuck that.

 

Oh I dunno. I think he's doing a good job on her.

 

And the Oscar for Most Original Strawman goes to...

We've all seen guns compared to cars, knives, hammers, and even flower pots, but this is a first.

Where were you going with this?

"Owning an AR-15 is the same as being left-handed?"

Or were you about to suggest that the obsessive need to own The Most Guns is a congenital condition? Lifestyle choice? Is there a Gun Gene?

Do go on.

 

Follow the thread.

Gul said that having armed security in places was an infringement of his "right to be comfortable" when going to those places. I said there's no such thing as a "right to be comfortable," but, supposing there was, he better be prepared to accept other people's demands for it. Quas gives an example that many would be "uncomfortable" with--public manifestations of homosexuality--and asks if it would be okay to ban it on that basis.

And the answer is: of course not. One's desire for "comfort" does not override others' rights to live and act as they please.

 

Not what I said actually. Go back and read it again, then imagine palace where I have a right to be that becomes inaccessible.

 

A armed guard doesn't make a place inaccessible.

Unless you're admitting to us that you're a criminal and want to do criminal acts in those places.

 

"Homosexuals complain that they're persecuted, but Christians are persecuted, too. Why don't we have the same rights as teh gays?"

Same "argument."

So, is there a Gun Gene, or is the compulsion to own guns more like being left-handed?

 

Is there an explicit Constitutional right to be openly gay?

 

Only if you're a member of a well-regulated militia.

 

Yeah, the whole genetic strand.

 

You apparently are unaware that the Supreme Court has ruled (see District of Columbia v. Heller and incorporated against the states in McDonald v. Chicago) that the 2nd recognizes an INDIVIDUAL right to own and keep ready a firearm for personal defense, and that this right IS NOT CONTINGENT on being part of the militia.

The whole "you have to be in the national guard to get a gun" argument is moot. From a legal standpoint, making that argument is like contending that Dred Scot is property or that "separate but equal" is valid. The meaning of the 2nd as far as individual vs. collective right is settled: it is an individual right.

 

But it IS perfectly normal. BOTH those things. Moreso owning guns, in fact, since 50% of households in the country own one.

 

I want people to have guns (if they choose) and people to be gay (if they choose).

I don't want to impose limits on other people simply because I'm "not comfortable" with their choices, and I want the same for me from them.

I'm just trying to make the point: if you can deny someone's 2nd Amendment rights--which are explicit in the Constitution and affirmed by Supreme Court ruling--and those rights are held by 100% of the people just because you aren't "comfortable," then why COULDN'T someone else force gay people to stay in the closet for the same reason? There's no explicit right to be gay, or to be gay publicly, and gays are far less numerous than gunowners, after all.

 

The good thing about these debates with people who want my guns is that I don't need to have them. I have guns. They don't.

 

I'd like a gumdrop paradise where people don't run around shooting each other, but I can't find a way to finagle it without using fascist force.


And the only liberal counter argument I come across is either "it's not fascism just because we don't use the word", or "I want the end result on the other end really bad with my feelings, so screw you".

Fuck off, not good enough, give me a better argument.

 

And, as I pointed out, there are just as many parallels in the around Christians who feel "persecuted" in the U.S. as opposed to, say, North Korea.

The thing is, I don't see anyone here taking the stance characterized in your last sentence, but the gun-lubbers keep chanting it...almost like a prayer.

 

And keep in mind, I'm one who finds the NRA and their propaganda despicable.

 

If you insist on finagling it, then, yeah, it's going to require force. If you observe the excruciatingly slow but inevitable evolution of human behavior since this guy:



you conclude that future generations will consider the need by some of us to huddle around our weapons caches drooling and screeching as primitive as we consider that guy^.

Not gonna happen within our lifetimes, but it will happen, as inevitably as the end of feudalism, the abolition of slavery, and a few other markers of an advancing civilization.

 

it's a flawed analogy. Try re-writing your posts with a racial group instead of gays. Is there something about being black that differs from being a gun owner? The words self and selecting might help you see what I'm getting at.

 

I don't think too many people are making either argument. Guns are like abortions. They exist, we have to accept that, but I'd like them to be less common and safer.

 

They're never going to be less common, and they're never going to be safer.

Accept it.

The ones you're worried about are already illegal. Making them more illegal won't accomplish shit.

Suck in that pouty lip and accept the world as it is.

 

Society has no legitimate interest in simply reducing the number of guns, or reducing the number of gunowners, anymore than it would reducing the number of books, or the number of people holding some particular opinion.

And, in the final analysis, guns are deadly weapons for one's personal defense. You may not legitimately force any "safety" regulations on them (or their owners) that undermines that purpose.

 

Arguably, they can be safer. That should be a no brainer. And I'm not talking about the weapon itself, but how people treat the weapon.