Not to mention the facile talk about "the left". — Sapientia

When you're unable to discuss substance, all that's left is to invoke ideological spectres to cover over argumentative inability. It's generally a good sign.

My statements aren't inconsistent particularly seeing as I clarified the first one in the Shout box in a reply to Sapientia. But even if there were an inconsistency, your conclusion makes no sense. You think you've found an inconsistency, you admit that you know of no reason that I would lie.Your conclusion: I'm lying. As I said, you're an odd one. — Baden

You're forgetting the other possibility, which is that you modified your position into the pragmatic one you've presented here when it was pointed out to you that you were inconsistent. I don't know that, though, which is why I said I can't read your mind.

I like that you presume I'm a leftist and I have tactics. It's kind of like being in a movie or something. — Baden

Nice dodge.

but I think it would be damned hard for the American military to take over if they wanted to. — Sir2u

Were I running the coup d'etat, I would recommend that the troops NOT fight it out with the citizenry on a block by block basis. There are much simpler ways of bringing the masses to their knees:

1. drastically reduce electric power; let local government allocate limited power to water supply, sewer pumps, hospitals (or cut it off altogether, if need be)
2. cut telephone/internet communication
3. ground airplanes (like on 9/15, only longer)
4. Sharply reduce ground transportation
5. Block radio signals

All of these actions can be taken without pointlessly killing a lot of people or destroying infrastructure, and can be eased off or leaned on, as needed. Conflict will probably arise around generation plants, major transmission switches, and wherever road and rail blocks are established -- generally, well outside of residential areas.

Power and telephone/internet cuts and sharply reduced ground transportation will produce real post-apocalyptic sensations which will reduce the entertainment value of revolting against the government to a minimum. Hot spots can be kept on ice longer, as needed.

When you're unable to discuss substance, all that's left is to invoke ideological spectres to cover over argumentative inability. It's generally a good sign. — StreetlightX

Amazing projection here.

Projection? You literally can't get through more than a couple of posts without writhing over the boogyman that is 'the left'. Not only do you seem to mistake fantasy for reality but also reality for fantasy.

I like that you presume I'm a leftist and I have tactics. It's kind of like being in a movie or something. — Baden

You mean... stutter, stutter, you aren't? You don't? Oh, woe is us.

To make jokes in poor humor, the Vega guy was shooting up a country music festival, and was in a bi-racial marriage, pretty sure that makes him a leftist. Also, did you see the guy standing up in the crowd basically yelling "come at me bro?" with cowering people all around him, that he was putting the lives of in danger with his stupidity? That's how you can tell he was a young republican.

Based on the fact the the American want to keep this from happening to them and that the English have already let it happen, maybe yes. — Sir2u

We didn't "let it" happen. There was a civil war, and throughout most of it, the Parliamentarians did not even seek to overthrow the monarchy. History could have easily taken a different path, and we might never have had a Commonwealth, or later, a Protectorate.

But in any case, that was hundreds of years ago. And, moreover, why should what the Americans want take precedence over what's in their best interest? Yes, that might come across as authoritarian, but, to give an example with which many would agree, I'd be strongly against the reintroduction of barbaric forms of punishment, such as hanging, beheading, and being burnt at the stake, irrespective of whether or not that's what my fellow Englishmen wanted.

Again, we should not give credence to, or encourage, these sort of unreasonable desires. Here or elsewhere.

Projection? You literally can't get through more than a couple of posts without invoking about the boogyman that is 'the left'. Not only do you seem to mistake fantasy for reality but also reality for fantasy. — StreetlightX

And he's not the only one. Although Agustino - to his credit - seems to have gone quiet after I called him out on it earlier.

And the armed Americans are going to let that happen? Maybe.

But in any case, that was hundreds of years ago. — Sapientia

Yes that's right, the English have no memories of the rights they once had. The Americans do however.

And, moreover, why should what the Americans want take precedence over what's in their best interest? — Sapientia

It's their country, if that is what they want who has the right to deny their wishes?

I'd be strongly against the reintroduction of barbaric forms of punishment, such as hanging, beheading, and being burnt at the stake, irrespective of whether or not that's what my fellow Englishmen wanted. — Sapientia

I'll bet the crime rates were low in those times though.

On the other hand, I'm not particularly interested in repealing the constitutional right to bear arms, as lately - largely in light of the autocratic tendencies of President Trump - I have had largely negative attitude towards strengthening the federal government. — Brian

The thought that owning a weapon would be any kind of defense against the US Department of Defense, if it came to that, is surely a ridiculous fantasy.

On the other hand, if arms really were to be organised and stored in the service of a 'well-organised militia', in a proper armoury, subject to checks, controls and balances, then you might have a workable model.

But there is about as much chance of that happening, as...I don't know...Trump appearing intelligent.

Is that the best that you can come up with? Disappointing. Perhaps you should think it through a bit more.

The thought that owning a weapon would be any kind of defense against the US Department of Defense, if it came to that, is surely a ridiculous fantasy. — Wayfarer

The threat of a real bloodbath would probably forestall any military action against the people. Could you imagine the American government being called out because they sent in the military to battle with the citizens. If there were no guns it would be a completely different story.

on the other hand, if arms really were to be organised and stored in the service of a 'well-organised militia', in a proper armoury, subject to checks, controls and balances, then you might have a workable model. — Wayfarer

And who would you say should have the job of organizing it? The military possibly.

The thought that owning a weapon would be any kind of defense against the US Department of Defense, if it came to that, is surely a ridiculous fantasy. — Wayfarer

Indeed. It seems as though some would rather focus on ridiculous fantasies than on evidence-based objections.

I did try to divert the course of the discussion, but to no avail, and then I allowed myself to get sucked into it.

Is that the best that you can come up with? Disappointing. Perhaps you should think it through a bit more. — Sapientia

You say this quite often don't you. Is there some special reason why? Did you never consider the fact that saying something is wrong is not enough, that there should be an explanation there somewhere.

Please be nice and tell me what is wrong with the post.

Please be nice and tell me what is wrong with the post. — Sir2u

No. I refuse to go in to details. I'm not going to humour you. I don't think that you put enough effort in on your end, and it's quid pro quo - so take it or leave it.

On the other hand, if arms really were to be organised and stored in the service of a 'well-organised militia', in a proper armoury, subject to checks, controls and balances, then you might have a workable model.
— Wayfarer

And who would you say should have the job of organizing it? — Sir2u

The point I was making was that the original Second Amendment quotation says:

'"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Everyone remembers the 'right to keep and bear' but nobody mentions 'the well-regulated militia'. If you had the former, then you would have a semblance of control and accountability - not the mere selling of any gun, to any buyer, as you see now. It's not a 'well-regulated militia', but armed anarchy and blood in the streets; not at all what the framers of the Constitution had in mind, I would think.

In any case, the fundamental lie behind unrestricted gun ownership, is the proposition that by owning a gun, you can feel safe. Whereas, in a properly civil culture, you DON'T have to own a gun to feel safe. NOT needing to 'bear arms' is a measure of civility, if you like. So I think the instance of gun death in America, is an indication of a failure of civility, or even, of the American conception of what constitutes a civilized society. It really is a grave and fundamental problem.

Nice dodge. — Thorongil

You should be able to work out the answer from what I've written. But anyway.

Why do you assume that it's the second amendment that causes gun deaths? Take a look here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/07/27/new-evidence-confirms-what-gun-rights-advocates-have-been-saying-for-a-long-time-about-crime/?utm_term=.085b6df2f17f — Thorongil

I'm not calling for a repeal of the second amendment (that would be futile) and I don't know that the second amendment in and of itself is the cause of the problem I'd like us to address (the disparity between the US and other developed countries in terms of violent crime and gun violence specifically), which is why I made a conditional statement about it rather than a categorical one and then clarified that. But we're never going to be able to have a normal conversation until you get over your paranoia about my (and others' here) motives. Isn't it possible that like most people, I don't want to see needless loss of lives and would be happy to see any measures taken that would solve the problem? That whether or not you keep your second amendment in this context is unimportant to me? That I'm not actually a tactically maneuvering leftist working (on a philosophy forum of all places) to try to ban all guns in America just to piss off the right?

Quite. But I've been responding to several people in this thread, all of whom disagree with me (and more than that, think that I'm an evil maniac) — Thorongil

Correction: "rightist evil maniac". ;)

The leftist mod brigade has tried very hard, sometimes with sarcasm and sometimes with apparent seriousness, to paint me as a gun-loving and toting nutjob. — Thorongil

Nope. It's your demonstrable paranoia and logical leaps that were objected too. I know you're not a gun lover but you do hate the left in a way that makes you sound irrational at times.

Isn't it possible that like most people, I don't want to see needless loss of lives and would be happy to see any measures taken that would solve the problem? — Baden

How soon you forget (or ignored to begin with). I made this post not long ago:

The samsaric nature of this "debate" in a nutshell:

Person A: I don't think more gun control would have stopped the recent mass shooting. A person intent on mass murder can find a way.

Person B: So that must mean there's no point in regulating weapons or trying to stop these killers! You're an awful person!

The second person's allegation, repeated ad nauseam by Baden and others, is simply a non-sequitur. The first person is not saying that we should not try to prevent these attacks. Rather, 1) he is merely pointing out that no law or regulation would likely have prevented the Las Vegas attack nor prevent all mass casualty attacks in the future and 2) he may have different ideas than the second person about how to reduce their occurrence.

It's only the second person's side that turns an empirically derived observation and disagreement about policy into an opportunity to cast moral aspersions on his interlocutor. In reality, opposition to leftist gun control schemes is only evidence of disagreement, not of indifference to or, even more egregiously, support of mass murder. The first person's side often acknowledges that the other side is 1) genuinely repulsed by mass shootings, 2) wants them to stop, and 3) believes that their policy recommendations will solve the problem or at least greatly alleviate it. The second person's side takes disagreement with 3) to directly entail a lack of 1) and 2). Don't fall for this red herring, because its sole purpose is to guilt trip you into agreeing with 3), the evidence for which is up for rational debate.

Correction: "rightist evil maniac". ;) — Baden

*Sigh*

Nope. It's your demonstrable paranoia and logical leaps that were objected too. I know you're not a gun lover but you do hate the left in a way that makes you sound irrational at times. — Baden

Perhaps one reason why is because I keep being smugly accused of "demonstrable paranoia and logical leaps" by the left without evidence. Something to think about.

In the hours following a violent rampage in Las Vegas in which a lone attacker killed more than 50 individuals and seriously injured 400 others, citizens living in the only country where this kind of mass killing routinely occurs reportedly concluded Monday that there was no way to prevent the massacre from taking place. “This was a terrible tragedy, but sometimes these things just happen and there’s nothing anyone can do to stop them,” said Iowa resident Kyle Rimmels, echoing sentiments expressed by tens of millions of individuals who reside in a nation where over half of the world’s deadliest mass shootings have occurred in the past 50 years and whose citizens are 20 times more likely to die of gun violence than those of other developed nations. “It’s a shame, but what can we do? There really wasn’t anything that was going to keep these individuals from snapping and killing a lot of people if that’s what they really wanted.” At press time, residents of the only economically advanced nation in the world where roughly two mass shootings have occurred every month for the past eight years were referring to themselves and their situation as “helpless.”

‘No Way To Prevent This,’ Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens

Nice idea. Didn't work out for you in practice though.

*Sigh* — Thorongil

The difference between you and a person with a sense of humour in a nutshell. Cheer up, please. Lighthearted comments like that are an attempt to steer things back on a more productive path not a serious attempt at insult.

an attempt to steer things back on a more productive path — Baden

I see nothing productive about it. Even if it were, the horse is already out of the barn.

And the armed Americans are going to let that happen? Maybe. — Sir2u

Is that the best that you can come up with? Disappointing. Perhaps you should think it through a bit more. — Sapientia

I couldn't say it better.

not a serious attempt at insult. — Baden

By the way, I knew it wasn't an attempted insult. The bitter sarcasm and hyperbolic reactions in this thread have always been accompanied by an implicit wink and a nudge. You know that I know that you know that you don't really think I'm crazy. The idea is to make me respond in kind so as to entertain you. I've tried to stick to my position and the argument at hand, however, and not fall for the bait. This is why I say with complete sincerity that you haven't refuted anything I've said. I know what it looks like when someone knows they have me dead to rights. This thread is mostly shitposting and moral preening on the part of you and your mod buddies.

By the way, I knew it wasn't an attempted insult. — Thorongil

Thank goodness.

The bitter sarcasm and hyperbolic reactions...[continues with bitterness and hyperbole] — Thorongil

I can only again suggest you cheer up and stop taking things personally. You did become the butt of some jokes and harsh criticism because of some things you said. If you really feel you are being picked on, you can raise it in Feedback. Anyway, on with the discussion hopefully.

Perhaps one reason why is because I keep being smugly accused of "demonstrable paranoia and logical leaps" by the left without evidence. Something to think about. — Thorongil

No, that's not true. The logical leap has been explained multiple times now. I know because I've been following this discussion closely since it began in the Shoutbox. StreetlightX did a good job the last time.

Who rules England? The government.
Who backs up the government? The military.
They don't need a coup because they already run the place...

...

Based on the fact the the American want to keep this from happening to them and that the English have already let it happen, maybe yes. — Sir2u

Isn't that the same in the U.S.?