Conservatives: What are your principles? - Page 84 - Politics and Society -- Two Plus Two Poker Forums

If you’re seriously looking into it... you should research laws of perspective. The horizon is very telling when you compare to looking down a hallway at a hotel the floor converges with the ceiling. This tells us it’s possible we live on a flat plane bc we can’t see forever. So science explains this that boats go over the horizon when it’s really just the laws of perspective.

TBH, I actually found a legit way to make a nice chunk of change if it were to be discovered that the earth was indeed a pancake. So I welcome all the facts that can prove it.

Quote

09-19-2020 , 05:31 PM

#2077

formula72

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 4,751

Quote:

Originally Posted by d2_e4

If they do, your gun is useless. If they don't, you don't need a gun.

Could I ever need a gun regardless if the govt becomes tyrannical?

Quote

09-19-2020 , 05:32 PM

#2078

d2_e4

certifiable moron

Join Date: Sep 2014 Posts: 16,118

Quote:

Originally Posted by formula72

Could I ever need a gun regardless if the govt becomes tyrannical?

Quite possibly, but I was addressing that specific fantasy.

Quote

09-19-2020 , 05:39 PM

#2079

King Spew

Just average

Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 15,534

How about we get back to Conservatives: What are your principles? instead of feeding trolls.

kthxbye

Quote

09-19-2020 , 05:46 PM

#2080

Victor

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 75,054

Quote:

Originally Posted by rjr777

It’s about being out matched by a tyrannical government we don’t need restriction on arms we need total freedom so we can go Jill the bad guys that take money to run the world corportacracy chroni capitalist that’s not true free market capitalism

no actually it is. guess what happens when the wealth accumulates? the few take over the govt.

Quote

09-19-2020 , 05:50 PM

#2081

MrWookie

Don't Call Me Meredith

Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 94,159

Quote:

Originally Posted by King Spew

How about we get back to Conservatives: What are your principles? instead of feeding trolls.

kthxbye

Quote

09-19-2020 , 06:35 PM

#2082

d2_e4

certifiable moron

Join Date: Sep 2014 Posts: 16,118

Looks like a circle to me.

Quote

09-19-2020 , 06:45 PM

#2083

d2_e4

certifiable moron

Join Date: Sep 2014 Posts: 16,118

Quote:

Originally Posted by formula72

TBH, I actually found a legit way to make a nice chunk of change if it were to be discovered that the earth was indeed a pancake. So I welcome all the facts that can prove it.

Shorting shares in GPS providers?

Quote

09-19-2020 , 08:46 PM

#2084

wet work

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 9,441

**** chicks*
Get money
moan about taxes

* ok other dudes while you watch, but whatever it's kinda close

Quote

09-19-2020 , 09:15 PM

#2085

d2_e4

certifiable moron

Join Date: Sep 2014 Posts: 16,118

Quote:

Originally Posted by wet work

**** chicks
Get money
moan about taxes

****, so I've been a conservative all this time?

Quote

09-19-2020 , 11:09 PM

#2086

formula72

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 4,751

Quote:

Originally Posted by King Spew

How about we get back to Conservatives: What are your principles? instead of feeding trolls.

kthxbye

It was my mistake.

I support folks who want to own a gun for self defense or hunting regardless whether its believed to make them more unsafe or not.

Other than that, not much else. Come at me.

Quote

09-20-2020 , 07:00 AM

#2087

tame_deuces

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 18,068

I'm sympathetic to the arguments for gun ownership, the ethics of a state disarming a populace is questionable. Then again, I have never minded guns and been around them my entire life.

The problem of course is that the price is a lot of idiots with guns who should in a rational world probably never be allowed near one.

Principle vs consequence is not, and has never been, an easy political dilemma. And it is not one solved with posters, memes and slogans.

Quote

09-20-2020 , 11:59 AM

#2088

d2_e4

certifiable moron

Join Date: Sep 2014 Posts: 16,118

Quote:

Originally Posted by tame_deuces

It's pretty hard to find a good argument why a civilian would need an automatic machine gun. Also, this LARPing about standing up to a tyrannical government is disingenuous horseshit. Incidentally, it's also the only argument right wingers can find for why they should be allowed to buy AK47s at Walmart.

Quote

09-20-2020 , 12:09 PM

#2089

tame_deuces

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 18,068

Quote:

Originally Posted by d2_e4

Well, presumably it is up to the individual to decide what constitutes tyrannical government. I mean, the alternative is that it is up to government, which sounds misguided.

Of course a lot of crazy people will decide that tyrannical government is happening regardless of the actual government, which is problematic and does occur.

But then again, tyrannical governments certainly happen too.

Quote

09-20-2020 , 12:14 PM

#2090

d2_e4

certifiable moron

Join Date: Sep 2014 Posts: 16,118

Quote:

Originally Posted by tame_deuces

I mean that the argument that the populace needs to be armed in case the government turns tyrannical is absurd on its face. It might have been valid at the time the second amendment was ratified, and the force multipliers available to the government and the military were roughly the same as those available to the general populace, and all else being equal a conflict might be decided by numbers alone. The force multipliers available to a modern military are orders of magnitude in excess of those available to a civilian, so this argument no longer holds.

Quote

09-20-2020 , 12:18 PM

#2091

tame_deuces

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 18,068

Quote:

Originally Posted by d2_e4

I mean that the argument that the populace needs to be armed in case the government turns tyrannical is absurd on its face. It might have been valid at the time the second amendment was ratified, and the force magnifiers available to the government and the military were roughly the same as those available to the general populace, and all else being equal a conflict might be decided by numbers alone. The force magnifiers available to a modern military are orders of magnitude in excess of those available to a civilian, so this argument no longer holds.

Not really, asymmetrical warfare is a thing and it works very well. Victory can be achieved in many ways, you don't necessarily need to field an equivalent number and tally the score at the end.

Quote

09-20-2020 , 12:23 PM

#2092

d2_e4

certifiable moron

Join Date: Sep 2014 Posts: 16,118

Quote:

Originally Posted by tame_deuces

Not really, asymmetrical warfare is a thing and it works very well. Victory can be achieved in many ways, you don't necessarily need to field an equivalent number and tally the score at the end.

How does this play out in practice if, let's say, Obama, decides he wants to cancel elections and crown himself king (and the military is on his side), and all the patriotic right-wing gun owners decide to stage an insurrection? I can't see any scenario where they don't get crushed, but I'll admit I don't know a huge amount about military conflicts.

Quote

09-20-2020 , 12:28 PM

#2093

chezlaw

Limey Bastard

Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 47,844

Quote:

Originally Posted by tame_deuces

Not really, asymmetrical warfare is a thing and it works very well. Victory can be achieved in many ways, you don't necessarily need to field an equivalent number and tally the score at the end.

Yes I pointed this out before. Also that the problem with that as an argument for guns is that many will be on the government side.

Quote

09-20-2020 , 12:29 PM

#2094

tame_deuces

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 18,068

Quote:

Originally Posted by d2_e4

Consider that ISAF couldn't even root out violent insurrection in Afghanistan, and scope of the problem becomes apparent. And victory isn't necessarily achieved by beating these hypothetical military forces in strategic victory (that would be a poor strategy, as you would lose). The hypothetical resistance is gunning for political victory.

But of course, if the populace is disarmed or near disarmed, then things are much easier as your armed forces can approach the problem in much less cautious manner.

Quote

09-20-2020 , 12:30 PM

#2095

d2_e4

certifiable moron

Join Date: Sep 2014 Posts: 16,118

Quote:

Originally Posted by chezlaw

Yes I pointed this out before. Also that the problem with that as an argument for guns is that many will be on the government side.

TD is defending it as an argument for guns though, unless I am misunderstanding.

Quote

09-20-2020 , 12:33 PM

#2096

tame_deuces

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 18,068

Quote:

Originally Posted by d2_e4

TD is defending it as an argument for guns though, unless I am misunderstanding.

I'm sympathetic to gun ownership argued on the reasoning that a government should not get to disarm a population.

I don't have complete answers to how the problem should be resolved or how we should deal with irresponsible gun ownership.

Quote

09-20-2020 , 12:34 PM

#2097

d2_e4

certifiable moron

Join Date: Sep 2014 Posts: 16,118

Quote:

Originally Posted by tame_deuces

Ok, I'll accept that as a possibility. I very much doubt that 99% of the people claiming that they need their guns for this scenario would have the slightest idea how to make this work though, as it sounds like it requires a fair amount of strategic military and political nous.

Quote

09-20-2020 , 12:36 PM

#2098

chezlaw

Limey Bastard

Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 47,844

Quote:

Originally Posted by d2_e4

TD is defending it as an argument for guns though, unless I am misunderstanding.

He is pointing out the mistake in the argument that guns are useless in the face of the governments superior military force.

That mistake remains whether pro-gun or anti-gun

Quote

09-20-2020 , 12:39 PM

#2099

chezlaw

Limey Bastard

Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 47,844

Quote:

Originally Posted by tame_deuces

I'm sympathetic to gun ownership argued on the reasoning that a government should not get to disarm a population.

I'm sympathetic to it in that governments banning guns is inherently bad.

Banning them is a necessary evil. And not a close call imo. Same with a lot of knives and much other weaponry.

Quote

09-20-2020 , 12:39 PM

#2100

d2_e4

certifiable moron

Join Date: Sep 2014 Posts: 16,118

Quote:

Originally Posted by chezlaw

He is pointing out mistake in the argument that guns are useless in the face if the governments superior military force.

That mistake remains whether pro-gun anti-gun

So what point were you trying to make with this then? Your posting really is indecipherable sometimes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by chezlaw

Yes I pointed this out before. Also that the problem with that as an argument for guns is that many will be on the government side.