Politics: The Final Frontier

[Hurlshort]

6 minutes ago, Guard Dog said:

I'll ask you the same question I asked James. What solution is there that does not involve the confiscation of private property, at gunpoint no less, of millions of people who have committed no crime? That is tantamount to punishing the innocent for the crimes of the guilty. 

Why do I have to answer the question? You are the one with the guns. You should be answering the question. Every responsible gun owner should be desperately ashamed and racking their brains for ways to stop mass shootings. The NRA should be leading the charge to stop gun violence. Nobody wants to take responsibility for anything. They just want to dig in.

Also the whole narrative that shame is somehow a bad thing boggles my mind. I have no problem with the idea that white males should be ashamed that other white males are committing mass shootings. Germans spent decades being ashamed of WW2. The South should be ashamed of slavery. Muslims should be ashamed of Islamic Extremists. Fat people should be ashamed of all the terrible health problems in the US. The US should be ashamed about Japanese Internment camps. They should be ashamed about the current border crisis. Shame doesn't actually hurt you. It should be pushing you to do better.

[smjjames]

1 minute ago, Guard Dog said:

OK, tell me a constructive way to "ban guns" that does not involve making the private property of millions of people who have committed no crimes suddenly illegal?  What do YOU have in mind? If you want to ban new sales but grandfather in existing arms, I'm listening. Of course you are talking about a gun buying spree like no other before that goes into effect. And there are literally millions of them in private hands now. What do you have in mind?

Or maybe I'm not thinking of "ban all guns"? hm?

While reducing the number of guns somehow is neccesary, there is no easy silver bullet answer (which is what the whole 'ban all guns' thing is, an attempt at applying a simple answer to a problem that is anything but) or one that involves mass gun grabs. I don't claim to know the absolute best way to solve it, but the starting point is going to be legislation like licensing and universial background checks and things most other countries do it, allowing the CDC to do the research and treat it like a public health issue (which some are saying we should treat it like), fully funding the ATF, and stuff like that. I know your stance on government and regulations, etc, but there are some things that can only be effectively done on the federal scale.

Having federal gun laws that use the common denominator (or whatever everybody agrees on) for all 50 states would definetly help because I seriously doubt that any other nation has the same extreme of patchwork network of gun laws. The California shooter brought his legally from Nevada, you can have the strictest gun laws all you want, but if they can just go to another state, that just makes the laws ineffective.

10 minutes ago, Hurlshot said:

Why do I have to answer the question? You are the one with the guns. You should be answering the question. Every responsible gun owner should be desperately ashamed and racking their brains for ways to stop mass shootings. The NRA should be leading the charge to stop gun violence. Nobody wants to take responsibility for anything. They just want to dig in.

Exactly, except for the ashamed part (though I seriously doubt he's the only one who owns guns on the forum, just the most vocal on the politics threads).

[Guard Dog]

47 minutes ago, Hurlshot said:

Why do I have to answer the question? You are the one with the guns. You should be answering the question. Every responsible gun owner should be desperately ashamed and racking their brains for ways to stop mass shootings. The NRA should be leading the charge to stop gun violence. Nobody wants to take responsibility for anything. They just want to dig in.

Also the whole narrative that shame is somehow a bad thing boggles my mind. I have no problem with the idea that white males should be ashamed that other white males are committing mass shootings. Germans spent decades being ashamed of WW2. The South should be ashamed of slavery. Muslims should be ashamed of Islamic Extremists. Fat people should be ashamed of all the terrible health problems in the US. The US should be ashamed about Japanese Internment camps. They should be ashamed about the current border crisis. Shame doesn't actually hurt you. It should be pushing you to do better.

Why on earth should I be ashamed? I've never harmed any one. I've never used a firearm for anything illegal. Paper targets, legal game in season, pest control. I've never pointed one at a human being and I don't expect I ever will. Didn't even do it in the military. I am not answerable for the crimes of other people, None of us are. What is my personal responsibility because two miserable pricks I've never heard of over 1000 miles away decided to kill innocent people? 

Want to stop mass shootings? That part is easy. Change the culture. Tell politicians to stop painting opponents an enemies. Tell Sean Hannity to stop saying Democrats are really communists that want to put them in gulags. Tell Rachel Maddow and Chris Matthews to stop insinuating the RNC really a Klan meeting. Tell the NRA that the election of a Democrat will not necessarily lead to "jack booted thugs" (actual words from 1992) "goose stepping" (again actual words) into their homes to take their firearms. Tell ANTIFA that their rhetoric and violence makes them the very thing they say they oppose. Tell Hillary Clinton her fellow americans are not a "basket of deplorables". Tell Obama the people who didn't support him were really racists "clinging bitterly to guns and religion" in fear of people who don't look like them. Tell everyone while many terrorists are muslim few few muslims are terrorist. None of these things will ever happen though.  Stoking passions and negative energy is big business now. Because of the internet the reach is farther and too many people like at least one of the two SoBs yesterday really thinks there is a hispanic invasion that wants to make him learn to speak spanish whatever the hell set him off.  What we need is to turn down the temperature. We've made enemies of our own people over nothing. That is why it's happening. 

Edited August 4, 2019 by Guard Dog

[Skarpen]

15 minutes ago, Hurlshot said:

Why do I have to answer the question? You are the one with the guns. You should be answering the question. Every responsible gun owner should be desperately ashamed and racking their brains for ways to stop mass shootings. The NRA should be leading the charge to stop gun violence. Nobody wants to take responsibility for anything. They just want to dig in

Um, why would a law abiding gun owner be responsible or ashamed for someone's else wrongdoings? And why would they be responsible to find a solution? Are car owners responsible for someone's reckless driving and required to find solutions? Are people owning computers responsible for hackers and required to find solutions? 

Quote

Also the whole narrative that shame is somehow a bad thing boggles my mind. I have no problem with the idea that white males should be ashamed that other white males are committing mass shootings. Germans spent decades being ashamed of WW2. The South should be ashamed of slavery. Muslims should be ashamed of Islamic Extremists. Fat people should be ashamed of all the terrible health problems in the US. The US should be ashamed about Japanese Internment camps. They should be ashamed about the current border crisis. Shame doesn't actually hurt you. It should be pushing you to do better.

Shaming people because they share skin color, ethnicity, nationality or place of birth with a culprit is WRONG! 

YOU should be ashamed that YOU hold such views. 

[Malcador]

Eh, probably something more than just political reasons

Edited August 4, 2019 by Malcador

[Guard Dog]

4 minutes ago, smjjames said:

Or maybe I'm not thinking of "ban all guns"? hm?

While reducing the number of guns somehow is neccesary, there is no easy silver bullet answer (which is what the whole 'ban all guns' thing is, an attempt at applying a simple answer to a problem that is anything but) or one that involves mass gun grabs. I don't claim to know the absolute best way to solve it, but the starting point is going to be legislation like licensing and universial background checks and things most other countries do it, allowing the CDC to do the research and treat it like a public health issue (which some are saying we should treat it like), fully funding the ATF, and stuff like that. I know your stance on government and regulations, etc, but there are some things that can only be effectively done on the federal scale.

Having federal gun laws that use the common denominator (or whatever everybody agrees on) for all 50 states would definetly help because I seriously doubt that any other nation has the same extreme of patchwork network of gun laws. The California shooter brought his legally from Nevada, you can have the strictest gun laws all you want, but if they can just go to another state, that just makes the laws ineffective.

 

OK, a public health issue. How would that work? There are "red flag" laws in most states now that would permit a court order to seize all of a person's legal firearms for possible metal health issues. Unlike the rest of the justice system the burden of proof of mental stability is on the accused not the state. But even if you accept that is not unreasonably draconian ( I think it is) the problem with it is someone has to report the individual in the first place. 

Another way to go would be to monitor all social media for "extremist" commentary. Word filters, etc. Then start surveying the people in question.  You can see the potential for rampant abuse in that I'm sure. Besides, just what I've posted on this one forum over the years I'd be shocked if I'm not on one "watch list" or another! 

[Gromnir]

1 hour ago, smjjames said:

 

As for what sort of weapons, if we restrict things to what was contemporary (which seems reasonable, right? Things like the AK and Uzis were still over a 100 years in the future at that point), we'd include weapons like the Kentucky rifle or similar modern weapons. 

no, this is not reasonable, and thank goodness the Court has rare indulged in such reductions. founders couldn't possible contemplate the modern airport, so Constitutional interstate travel liberties don't apply to air travel and limits on free speech limits for planes and airports is okie dokie for similar reasons?

the Court's historical analysis in heller were curious, but even so, the "in common use at the time," approach were specific rejected, albeit via dicta.

HA! Good Fun!

 

[smjjames]

17 minutes ago, Guard Dog said:

OK, a public health issue. How would that work? There are "red flag" laws in most states now that would permit a court order to seize all of a person's legal firearms for possible metal health issues. Unlike the rest of the justice system the burden of proof of mental stability is on the accused not the state. But even if you accept that is not unreasonably draconian ( I think it is) the problem with it is someone has to report the individual in the first place. 

Another way to go would be to monitor all social media for "extremist" commentary. Word filters, etc. Then start surveying the people in question.  You can see the potential for rampant abuse in that I'm sure. Besides, just what I've posted on this one forum over the years I'd be shocked if I'm not on one "watch list" or another! 

I meant in terms of taking it seriously and treat it like one would of some of the major public health issues. The CDC research should have been done over 20 years ago, but better late than never.

5 minutes ago, Gromnir said:

no, this is not reasonable, and thank goodness the Court has rare indulged in such reductions. founders couldn't possible contemplate the modern airport, so Constitutional interstate travel liberties don't apply to air travel and limits on free speech limits for planes and airports is okie dokie for similar reasons?

the Court's historical analysis in heller were curious, but even so, the "in common use at the time," approach were specific rejected, albeit via dicta.

HA! Good Fun!

 

TBH, I did take my 'contemporary' tangent and ran off with it in a more literal fashion than would apply legally.

[ShadySands]

The NSA agent assigned to GD after reading his last post

There are no simple solutions for this and until enough people will sign on to any of the drastic! change ideas then sadly not much will happen. We maybe get some more cosmetic gun ban laws and more magazine size limits but outisde of maybe some local ordinances then I think that is the most that will happen. Also, as it has been mentioned already, the drastic! changes may very likely face a similarly drastic! opposition.

[smjjames]

Also, given the vast scale of the problem, the only solutions to getting down to European (for example) levels are going to be drastic no matter what, unless you take the long vision and go for a proccess that would take many decades (and could be derailed at any time). People like to cite Australia, but they have about 25 million people compared to our 300 million. There are 400 million guns in the US and 20% of that (which was the Australia gun buyback I think?) is 80 million. We're dealing with the law of large numbers here.

To take a somewhat different tangent on this, this article makes the point that politicians on both sides aren't taking into account the deeper sociological aspects of gun ownership. The study linked in the article. While I have no idea how that would translate legislatively and the fact that it's dominated by white males would skew things somewhat, having politicians try to look at it from a different angle than the usual is more the point they're making.

Edited August 4, 2019 by smjjames

[Gromnir]

as an aside, gd acts as if private property is special. it ain't. never has been, and for good reason. if the government takes your property, they need pay you. that's it. is all kinda fundamental rights in this nation, and we protect such rights more than does most western nations. speech, religion, interstate travel, and marriage is 'mong the short list o' protected fundamental rights.  private property is not a fundamental right, and thank goodness. gd has a diseased animal which could threaten the health and safety o' hundreds, thousands or even millions o' people? government can't take and dispose o' the animal? if gd agrees that government can take in our diseased animal situation, then...

perhaps the government is building a dam which is necessary due to climate change... will prevent thousands o' homes from being flooded. gd owns land which government needs to build dam.

...

we were gonna list more, but why? takes little imagination to come up with compelling reasons for government to take private property.  the thing is, the government has never needed a compelling reason. no government would function if every tax had to be providing a compelling State interest. any person need sell property to pay tax would have an ironclad defense 'gainst government taking. 

government can't take your liberties and your fundamental rights, but money and personal property is not even on the fuzzy grey border o' such rights.

that said, gd is hardly alone when it comes to his love o' his guns

sure, gd would feel bad 'bout killing his rabid dog, but we can't even imagine how heartbroken he would be if he need give up his arsenal.

is a large number o' americans who has owned firearms and hunted since before they had a bicycle. firearms ownership is as much a part o' their national identity as is hating commies (not that most americans has ever met a commie) and drinking beer... and we all know what happened when the government tried to take away american's beer. 

'course forcible taking would never happen as would be a logistical nightmare and thoroughly impractical.  such a threat is a hobgoblin meant to scare folks. government would offer to buy guns which would get many off the street.  if gd is a registered gun owner and refuses to surrender, then government could fine him into submission. why try and break down his door if they can empty his bank account, turn off his utilities and break his will? gd needs to go to work sometime, eh? not anymore if he wanna keep his guns. no doubt there would be extreme enhancement added to any crime committed with a firearm. sneer at such if you wish, but it worked very well with the assault weapons ban. practical overnight you saw and end to gang members and drug dealers using such weapons save in rare circumstances. sure, there would be a few holdouts up in appalachia and the rockies and in swamps n' holler 'cross the nation, but most folks who ain't complete off the grid would eventual need surrender their weapons, and in spite o' big talk, am doubting there would be much violence.

'course there would also be a handful o' criminals and wouldbe mass shooters who would find a way to acquire firearms when needed... would create a very lucrative opportunity for criminals to supply firearms. 

"the one hand giveth; the other taketh away."

HA! Good Fun!

[Guard Dog]

25 minutes ago, smjjames said:

Also, given the vast scale of the problem, the only solutions to getting down to European (for example) levels are going to be drastic no matter what, unless you take the long vision and go for a proccess that would take many decades (and could be derailed at any time).

To take a somewhat different tangent on this, this article makes the point that politicians on both sides aren't taking into account the deeper sociological aspects of gun ownership. The study linked in the article. While I have no idea how that would translate legislatively and the fact that it's dominated by white males would skew things somewhat, having politicians try to look at it from a different angle than the usual is more the point they're making.

Quote

Any real gun law reform is going to need to take this community and value system into account. Liberals need gun owners as allies. Today, in the wake of more mass shootings, good citizenship requires that the millions of gun owners who say they support gun regulation do more than think about their own way of life. They need to turn that support into vocal activism. In so doing, they may help bring about changes necessary to protect the communities that we all share.

In order for them to be willing to do so, gun owners need assurance that liberal gun reform advocates will not march down a slippery slope from red-flag laws, regulating semi-automatic weapons and large capacity magazines and closing the gun-show loophole to intrusive regulations that start to break down a culture that millions of people value greatly—one that enriches their lives and whose roots go back before America's founding.

Interesting article. I agree completely with highlighted quote. What I don't hear from the people advocating gun control is that there is a right to own a firearm. Before we can all have a rational discussion about WHAT firearms can be owned I want to hear political leaders acknowledge what the supreme Court already has: there IS an individual right. Instead what we get is quotes like Diane Feinstein's "Mr. & Mrs. America, turn them all in". To that that answer will always be "f--k you, come take them"

Slightly OT on the article I really don't agree with the assertion that firearms are anything other that "neutral tools". IMO that is precisely what they are with the exception of collectibles or antiques. I have a 140 year old cap and ball Colt .32 Navy revolver that will never leave the display case it's in. But I don't really consider that a gun anymore. I am not a sentimental man by nature I guess. To me inanimate objects mostly have an absolute value and serve a specific purpose. I don't think of any of my firearms any differently than my chainsaw or my tape measure. They serve a purpose. 

Edited August 4, 2019 by Guard Dog
spelling

[Guard Dog]

7 minutes ago, Gromnir said:

as an aside, gd acts as if private property is special. it ain't. never has been, and for good reason. if the government takes your property, they need pay you. that's it. is all kinda fundamental rights in this nation, and we protect such rights more than does most western nations. speech, religion, interstate travel, and marriage is 'mong the short list o' protected fundamental rights.  private property is not a fundamental right, and thank goodness. gd has a diseased animal which could threaten the health and safety o' hundreds, thousands or even millions o' people? government can't take and dispose o' the animal? if gd agrees that government can take in our diseased animal situation, then...

perhaps the government is building a dam which is necessary due to climate change... will prevent thousands o' homes from being flooded. gd owns land which government needs to build dam.

...

we were gonna list more, but why? takes little imagination to come up with compelling reasons for government to take private property.  the thing is, the government has never needed a compelling reason. no government would function if every tax had to be providing a compelling State interest. any person need sell property to pay tax would have an ironclad defense 'gainst government taking. 

government can't take your liberties and your fundamental rights, but money and personal property is not even on the fuzzy grey border o' such rights.

that said, gd is hardly alone when it comes to his love o' his guns

Sure. The Takings clause is a thing. It's not unreasonable to expect to be compensated at fair value however. And that the taking really is for a "public good" rather than a favor to a business that provides bigger campaign donations and potential tax revenue as in Kelo. 

As for the rest I'll direct you to the last paragraph of my last response. I love my dogs. I love my chickens (apparently because I can't seem to gin up the gumption to eat one of them), i love my friends and family. I don"love" inanimate objects like that. They are legal and mine and like anything else I own and have worked for I won't suffer someone telling me I can't have it. But don't imagine there is some emotional connection to them. There is not. 

[Gromnir]

3 minutes ago, Guard Dog said:

There is not. 

if you are willing to threaten violence 'gainst the otherwise innocent agents of government legal seeking to deprive you of your guns, as you have implied more than once, then am gonna continue to ignore your claims o' emotional indifference.

HA! Good Fun!

[smjjames]

The problem though with the assurance that they won't go into a slippery slope is that both sides are stuck in a spiral of escalation because one side (the most vocal of that anyway) keeps yelling slippery slope to even the smallest thing and considers no gun control measures acceptable while the other side gets more and more frustrated and keeps going bigger because there is no agreement on what is acceptable and neither side will budge.

As Gromnir mentioned earlier, Congress was barely able to get bump stock legislation through, and that is just about the most useless gun control measure possible.

7 minutes ago, Gromnir said:

if you are willing to threaten violence 'gainst the otherwise innocent agents of government legal seeking to deprive you of your guns, as you have implied more than once, then am gonna continue to ignore your claims o' emotional indifference.

HA! Good Fun!

Lets not go down the 'guns are a compesation for **** size' rabbit hole. I mean, there certainly are going to be some who treat it as such (or used as status symbols or whatever), but lets seriously not go down that rabbit hole.

I may also be misinterpreting what Gromnir is trying to imply.

edit: Despite the two different words for the male sexual organ being of slightly different lengths, it uses the four character * for both, odd.

Edited August 4, 2019 by smjjames

[Gromnir]

ps am thinking you would have a hard time explaining to hurl and others how no public good is served by a government taking of guns.  should be obvious, but gd don't get to decide which "public good" is genuine good. 

...

am not gonna need explain the whole democracy thing again, yes?

HA! Good Fun!

 

[Guard Dog]

36 minutes ago, Gromnir said:

if you are willing to threaten violence 'gainst the otherwise innocent agents of government legal seeking to deprive you of your guns, as you have implied more than once, then am gonna continue to ignore your claims o' emotional indifference.

HA! Good Fun!

I would be willing to fight as hard over my chainsaw. POS that it is. The point is the principle of the matter. You spent your career arguing over principle. I expect you'd understand that. And thankfully we do not live in a Democracy. There is a great quote attributed to Franklin (no way he ever said it) "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what's for lunch".

Edited August 4, 2019 by Guard Dog
Alcohol is affecting my spelling

[Guard Dog]

3 hours ago, Skarpen said:

Horrible. I always thought US police should be disbanded immediately after the moronic court verdict saying that they don't have to "serve and protect" or something in those lines. And then formed anew ensuring the "serve and protect" part is reinstated. 

 

Disbanded? Umm no. I don't even seriously think they should be disarmed. That was tongue-in-cheek. But taking away their qualified immunity absolutely should happen. 

[Zoraptor]

1 hour ago, smjjames said:

There are 400 million guns in the US and 20% of that (which was the Australia gun buyback I think?) is 80 million. We're dealing with the law of large numbers here.

The Australian buyback scheme involved ~650000 guns. I don't know it for a fact but I'd be extremely surprised if that was 20% of Australia's firearms, 10% would be far more realistic. The expectation here is that about 10% of guns will be handed in as well in our buy back scheme, though that's based on the Australian experience no doubt.

Couldn't see any buy back working well in the US, it didn't work all that well in Australia and isn't working that well here and guns as part of our 'culture' is a lot weaker in both places than in the US. Doesn't help that buy backs always set up to appeal to those who would not be a threat anyway- people concerned with following the law in the first place aren't going to be rampage killing except in very unusual circumstances- rather than people who would be a more significant threat.

[Gromnir]

10 minutes ago, Guard Dog said:

I would be willing to fight as hard over my chainsaw. POS that it is. The point is the principle of the matter. You spent your career arguing over principle. I expect you'd understand that. And thankfully we do not live in a Democracy. There is a great quote attributed to Franklin (no way he ever said it) "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what's for lunch".

yeah, Gromnir has fought for principle to our detriment more than once, but the idea that we would kill or severe injure somebody trying to take our chainsaw, or wallet or even car is the opposite o' our notions for fighting for principle. the chainsaw is a thing, and it' ain't even rising to the level o' necessity o' life. killing to keep somebody from taking your stuff and calling it a matter o' principle is, to our way o' thinking, the worst kinda arrogance. after all, any vile or despicable behaviour could thus be defended on the basis o' principle.

the el paso shooter? clear he thought he were acting on principle.  

and no, is not absolute democracy, but thanks for missing forest for trees once again.

HA! Good Fun!

 

[smjjames]

5 minutes ago, Zoraptor said:

The Australian buyback scheme involved ~650000 guns. I don't know it for a fact but I'd be extremely surprised if that was 20% of Australia's firearms, 10% would be far more realistic. The expectation here is that about 10% of guns will be handed in as well in our buy back scheme, though that's based on the Australian experience no doubt.

Couldn't see any buy back working well in the US, it didn't work all that well in Australia and isn't working that well here and guns as part of our 'culture' is a lot weaker in both places than in the US. Doesn't help that buy backs always set up to appeal to those who would not be a threat anyway- people concerned with following the law in the first place aren't going to be rampage killing except in very unusual circumstances- rather than people who would be a more significant threat.

The point is more that we're dealing with massive numbers and that any number is going to sound alarming no matter what. If it didn't work all that well in Australia, not sure why it keeps getting referred to as a shining example since I didn't know that it didn't work all that well.

[Hurlshort]

3 hours ago, Skarpen said:

Um, why would a law abiding gun owner be responsible or ashamed for someone's else wrongdoings? And why would they be responsible to find a solution? Are car owners responsible for someone's reckless driving and required to find solutions? Are people owning computers responsible for hackers and required to find solutions? 

Shaming people because they share skin color, ethnicity, nationality or place of birth with a culprit is WRONG! 

YOU should be ashamed that YOU hold such views. 

Yes, all car owners (drivers) should be ashamed of reckless drivers, and I'd probably say it would fall on coders to be ashamed of hackers, since your average computer user has little understanding of how to hack anything. 

Yes, they should all feel invested in finding solutions to those problems, because that would make the world a better place.

What, exactly, is wrong with shame? Does it hurt your sensitive snowflake feelings to be ashamed? 

I'm ashamed about that comment, and that's alright. I can grow from it. 

[Hurlshort]

3 hours ago, Guard Dog said:

  What we need is to turn down the temperature. We've made enemies of our own people over nothing. That is why it's happening. 

Hey, I totally agree with this as well. But it never works to just tell the other side to calm down. You have to step back and look at yourself to get there.

Edited August 4, 2019 by Hurlshot

[Bartimaeus]

23 minutes ago, Hurlshot said:

Yes, all car owners (drivers) should be ashamed of reckless drivers, and I'd probably say it would fall on coders to be ashamed of hackers, since your average computer user has little understanding of how to hack anything. 

Yes, they should all feel invested in finding solutions to those problems, because that would make the world a better place.

What, exactly, is wrong with shame? Does it hurt your sensitive snowflake feelings to be ashamed? 

I'm ashamed about that comment, and that's alright. I can grow from it. 

You didn't answer the question. What is the rationale for feeling shame in these situations? Why should I feel shame when a hacker does something bad when I myself had nothing to do with it? I think I have an idea of what your explanation is, but I'd rather actually hear it rather than make assumptions (especially since I think I emphatically disagree with it...but would rather not launch into a counterargument without actually being clear first).

Edited August 4, 2019 by Bartimaeus

[Guard Dog]

1 hour ago, Gromnir said:

yeah, Gromnir has fought for principle to our detriment more than once, but the idea that we would kill or severe injure somebody trying to take our chainsaw, or wallet or even car is the opposite o' our notions for fighting for principle. the chainsaw is a thing, and it' ain't even rising to the level o' necessity o' life. killing to keep somebody from taking your stuff and calling it a matter o' principle is, to our way o' thinking, the worst kinda arrogance. after all, any vile or despicable behaviour could thus be defended on the basis o' principle.

the el paso shooter? clear he thought he were acting on principle.  

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

Huge difference between the two scenarios. In the scenario of the Great Chainsaw Confiscation "they" came to MY home with guns and violence. Had they left me and mine the hell alone there will be no violence. In El Paso he went to a public space and shot people who had done nothing to him. There is NO principle that justifies that. They are by no means near the same thing.

And the idea of defending my home and property from people who came to take them by force, be they thieves or agents of the government  is arrogance? Well, if this be arrogance then make the most of it. 

Edited August 5, 2019 by Guard Dog