Iggy

"Why do people disbelieve in God?" I think at it's basest element it's 'cause and effect'. Those things for which there is no effect generally don't have a cause. If God has no effect then what cause could one imagine? People can disagree with cause and effect, and they frequently do (reference miracles), but it's clearly the stupidest kind of decision they can make. The moment one brings heaven and earth to bear... or as some book put it... 'call heaven and earth to testify'... they betray that they can't express their delusions without betraying their own worldview. You can't live basing your decisions on anything other than cause and effect and you can't be religious without disregarding it. Some people see the symmetry and irony of that, and then they can't help but disagree with stupidity... and disbelieve...

Unbelievable to you that someone could be speaking in overtones? I have time so I'll spell it all out... I have strongly supported gun ownership in this thread as a means of keeping tyranny at bay. I don't think you remember saying "as Iggy pointed out" earlier in the thread as if I was your greatest ally. The difference is that I approach the issue from the left because that is my background. Leftists fighting fascism are the examples of necessary gun use that I've given in this topic. I'm sure you dream in shades of Red Dawn, and that's fine for the purposes of this discussion too. When I said "you give me the impression of someone like a stone skipping across the water bumping into facts as you find them" it should have been clear. The way you were beating your chest with Engels name and trying to beat someone else over the head with it made me want to thoroughly show that you had no business throwing the name around. The way you failed to cite a source, failed to correctly quote the Communist Manifesto, and failed to know that Engels actually held the guns, is exactly what I wanted from you. I wanted to show that you have no business throwing the name around. I care because I can identify with Marxism and I support gun rights. Do you get it? "What did Engels have to say about gun rights" means "You have no freaking idea what Engels had to say about guns or why he said it, so please get back on your side of the aisle". Do you get it? It's not a name you get to throw around with arrogance. Maybe if you knew more about the guy, but you're far too right, and far too uninformed about the left of the 1800's to be doing it. I hope you get all that.

Would that be the guy played by Neil Patrick Harris, or the guy in a purple dinosaur suit? Either way, I think some kind of hideous square of spare parts is being rounded with flatteringly low levels of testosterone.

And because she more eaily could, which is probably in turn because women look lovely and men look like they're assembled out of spare parts.

I've always preferred doing my gnawing quietly. Lenny Bruce once said "satire is tragedy plus time". You keep reading my satire as tragedy, and there's no time to spend on that.

Fair enough. Your position? It would have to be fantastically close to mine if I minded you undercutting it. No, you really don't have to find one. The answer I feared you'd give to post 457 was, "Go to hell. Engels participated in armed rebellion. That's what he had to say about gun rights! He held the guns!". Someone who throws Engels name out in order to say "don't you know these basic facts", and claims to have read the Communist Manifesto as they incorrectly quote it probably should get that basic fact right. It's a cheap argument tactic I know. You used Engels name to show how little someone knew, so someone did the same in return. It's all good fun.

No, that quote isn't the communist manifesto and it isn't Engels. It's Marx (as cited by somebody else) from 1850. A google search would have told you that. Listen, it isn't the point of fact I care about. Maybe there is a quote of Engels somewhere on gun rights. I have no idea. But, I could tell by the condescending way you said it that you have no idea either. You did it again in your quote up there. You said "as far as I recall" in reference to the Communist Manifesto. Nobody here is fooled. You haven't read it. It undercuts your position to imply that you have. It doesn't much matter. Obviously leftists have supported armed rebellion. You could have made that point without beating your chest with facts that you'd barely accidentally bumped into on the internet is all.

What did Engels have to say about gun rights? Can you quote something? I get the impression you're like a stone skipping across the water bumping into facts as you find them. Please prove me wrong. Nobody mentions Engels unless they're referring to the communist manifesto, but I've read it and gun rights aren't mentioned in the communist manifesto, so what the hell are you referring to. I'm not sure you have any idea. What did Engels say about gun rights?

The circumference doesn't shrink (if I understand you) -- it increases. If observers take rulers onto the spinning ring and lay them along the circumference, the rulers will shrink from the perspective of a static observer. More of the shrunken rulers (that move along with the ring) will fit along the circumference than static rulers (which don't move along with the ring). More rulers = more distance, The radius doesn't length contract to the same extent. The ratio between the circumference and radius is therefore not pi, which is what I think you mean when you say "difference in radial shrinkage in the clock hand and the ring". This isn't a paradox. It just means that the spinning disk isn't Euclidean in the spinning frame. They call your thought experiment Ehrenfest's paradox

I admire your ability to know the mind of God. You are the first person I've ever met with the supernatural ability to decide what is and what is not the word of the creator of the universe. Would you consider editing the holy books, or authoring your own revelation, so that less fortunate people without superhuman powers can know what God wants and says?

And, the correlation with population density is just as striking and exactly the opposite as Rigney claims. Rural states with low population density are more likely to get more federal money than they give in taxes. Rigney, when you say "ultimately the big pigs or those who squeal the loudest won't always get the top slop portions" you seem to think that the most populated areas of the country (which do have a lot of representatives) get a lot of pork compared to the more rural states (which don't have many representatives). It is, in fact, the other way 'round. EDIT: I meant to add that an amendment for the right of privacy might be a good change. The framers maybe couldn't foresee the government's ability to know so much about people without having to ask. In other words, maybe the right not to be forced to testify against oneself doesn't go far enough anymore.

How extraordinarily literal. Even when someone posts a stand up comedian you refuse to see the joke. Are you a bot?

Which one? You have a link? Amen brother!

Can my answer be, please see post #419? I realized you meant me and responded.

Sure, but that's just how Germans sound... 3 points. 1) Dr. King was riled up about politics and he stopped 'corruption' without weapons. 2) People should be riled up about politics when the political system fails them (eg no taxation without representation, and the Arab spring). 3) The point I keep making is that prosperity breeds functional democracy. If ever (and their are plenty of modern and historical examples) employment gets up to 70% and the state fails to provide and protect then people will be annoyed and that is exactly when tyrants step in and offer something better than the current system with great applause. In that case "stopping corruption with weapons" may well be necessary. You can't vote Caligula, Caesar, or kadafi out of office. As a practical matter it can't be done. You say that these peopole wouldn't be there if not for 'riled up politics', but neither would anything else difficult get done without riled up politics. It is a utopia where tyrants avoid power and guns aren't a problem. But, guns aren't banned in this utopia, they just aren't used for human-human violence. There is too much to type, but I believe this link gets into it pretty heavily, The Bush-Saudi Connection The reason Bush and other US leaders feel beholden to the royal family is relatively simple. Where else would they get oil? The last time we refused to bend over for the Saudis and other smaller Arab countries was 1973. Perhaps you remember the oil embargo and the general crisis that followed. Gore may be less crazy than you think for wanting to be energy self-sufficient.

Al Gore was never president. You might be thinking of Bush selling us out to Saudi Arabia. He was all about doing that. In any case, despite the details I disagree with your premise. It is true that if we completely capitulate to a group then we have nothing to fight about with that group. If, for example, we became Muslim and worshiped the ground al-Qaeda walked on then they probably wouldn't try for our blood. But, this assumes that being 'taken over' by a tyrant involves an overt fight which can be avoided by capitulation. I think it's usually the opposite. Both Caesar and Hitler were voted into power. It's the smiley glad-hands you've got the most to worry about in the end.

Very good and well tendered. As I've explained at least three times: I'm talking about future despots and future despotism. On that future day, votes won't count, and if we disarm the population today then 1) we lose an opportunity to avert the despot's arrival, and 2) we eliminate a means of dealing with despotism if and when it arrives. In my less-humble submission, rebuffing those things mentioned is worth the "temporary insecurity" that we frequently see on the news,,, just like Jefferson said.about those who trade liberty for temporary personal security deserving neither.

I'm sure that would be a fine argument, but you didn't say or imply it at all. No, you didn't say (or mean) "ban" or "might". You explicitly said "ban or regulate" and your grammar means that the "necessitate" rather than "might". Let me quote what you said to avoid all this, Because that's the ONLY reason someone's stated "distrust of government" becomes relevant in any way in a thread discussing banning or regulating guns. [iNow #359] That has to mean that someone saying "I distrust the government to regulate firearms" necessarily means "I support overthrowing the government" to you. It is non sequitur, not true, and a little silly, and that's why I pointed it out. I'm not opposed to ballots or bullets. Sometimes one works where the other doesn't Tell the people of Syria to vote. As it happens, I've misspoke more times than can be counted and paid a heavy price for it. I truly believe that upon reflection you meant to say "if someone expresses a distrust in government as an argument in favor of guns then it means they feel guns might be needed in an overthrow.". That would be a reasonable statement and I wouldn't have a problem with it. I object heavily because you didn't say, imply, or later correct yourself to mean, that.

No, I meant 70. The security and prosperity we feel now with 7 is nothing like the desperate insecurity we would feel with 70. I guess I could have been more clear with my position. Right. You said that if somebody expresses a distrust in government power (in this topic) then one must necessarily be advocating the overthrow of the government.. Post 359 it is. It's borderline silly. When I said that no body is advocating an overthrow of the current government I was agreeing with you, and doing so for a purpose. I followed it up with the words "I'm sure we would both agree". I don't talk straightforward, but the words "I'm sure we would both agree" should hint that you shouldn't object "I didn't say that". The point has to do with things being so potentially bad in the future that a tyrant could take power, and guns forestalling that outcome. It isn't the best point. I've made better. But it doesn't deserve the misinterpretation you just gave it. No. Not close. Rigney said that a person attesting "I distrust government power" doesn't imply trying to overthrow the government. It's a perfectly reasonable point, and it's true, and I don't think you should have disagreed. I'll quote what he said, I don't trust the government's power to save me when a bear or a psychopath has me cornered in my room. According to you this means I advocate overthrowing the government. It's a way of shutting down debate -- telling people that they can't mention something without being extremest. "Needless distraction". Another patronizing way of shutting down debate

I understand how that view forms your inability to consider the realism of overthrowing a tyrant here in the US . The truth, and the crux of the matter, is that prosperity breeds content and calamity breeds discontent. When 70% of the people are unemployed, and health, security, and any hope of benefit fail us -- that is when tyrants show up and promise something better than the US system. You shouldn't be able to imagine overthrowing the government *now*. To overthrow Obama or any modern leader, whom are doing their moral best to serve the people, is unthinkable and despicable. I'm sure we agree. But, to say that it will never happen makes the mistake that I already elucidated. Some people assume that we can know, but in truth no person is smart enough to know.... just like how you can't ban a book because no one is smart enough to foresee its eventual consequences once public. In other words, it isn't really congress and the judiciary (the typical checks and balances) that make unattainable a leader whom needs overthrown. It is rather our relative state of prosperity. Hitler rose in Germany's most desperate hour. Besides, I see the spears that ended Caligula as a kind of checks and balances. To be fair, he said, How is that informative, if it is not too much to ask? Makes good sense, or have I misjudged? (I have a hard time judging sarcasm online).

You probably know, but if not it could be interesting: here in the US where guns and foxhunts are legal we don't really have them. We do have "fox chasing" which, as the name would suggest, is the same thing except the fox isn't attacked or killed. Then again we have coon hunts with coon dogs, but yeah... in that case the raccoon runs up a tree and gets cornered rather than being torn to shreds.

Good answer. I gave two examples to avoid that. You quoted one. I know you don't support banning guns, and I actually respect your view on this issue and many others far more than it would superficially appear. All you just did was repeat your claim that "The ONLY way that response about trust of government is relevant in the discussion is if the person simultaneously feels that guns might some day help them to overthrow an untrustworthy government." You didn't connect the two. There are numerous counterexamples one can give to your clam. I gave one counterexample earlier in the topic. I distrust the government because it gives fairly elected people like Richard Nixon an immense amount of power. Imagine a commander-in-chief like Nixon who is impeached but refuses to leave office. Imagine he uses the armed forces to stay in power longer than legally permitted. To dethrone him by force is not overthrowing the government. It would the civic duty of every USAan to use a means of available force to dethrone that person. Wanting to have that means of force because you distrust the government therefore doesn't imply you want to overthrow it. Second... Your assertion assumes that having weapons in no way curtails the evils that a government can do shy of overthrowing the government. In other words... leaders can't be intimidated into curtailing their power by an armed populace. Truth is that leaders do fear a mob, and an armed mob all the more, and they can treat their population less harshly as a result even shy of being overthrown. Rome did often treat its citizens better when a large portion of them were ex-military exactly because vets were armed, good at organizing, and quite capable of seeing something as a target. In other words... consider something Aristotle said, "the object of anger is to cause pain in others, and the object of hatred is to inflict harm." In my submission the proper emotion reserved for tyrants is hatred. There is no point in North Koreans having unexpressed anger in their leader. Active hatred would be useful. But, before North Korea were even governed by a tyrant it would have been useful if more people had a hatred of autocracy. As a means of violence guns are an expression of hatred (not anger). For that reason, saying "I don't trust the government to ban guns because I don't trust the government" can usefully avert the arrival of a tyrant. Guns are a symbol of hatred before they are a means of hatred. Saying "yes, tyrant, we do mean you harm" can be enough to keep one away. Then there is the more practical point. Books can't be banned even in principle because there exists nobody (and no body) that is smart enough to say "this book will never be useful once the public has read it". Likewise, I don't trust the government to ban guns because I think they're too stupid (as would be any human) to know what positive or negative consequences such an action would have in the future. We don't trust the government because *they can't know the eventual positive or negative consequences of banning or not banning guns*. The reason isn't that *we know they must eventually be overthrown*. The one is the negation of the other. Like I said, I really do appreciate your posts and this particular point you made, but I believe and I'm positive I've thoroughly shown that it is dead wrong and illogical.

Because that's the ONLY reason someone's stated "distrust of government" becomes relevant in any way in a thread discussing banning or regulating guns. Do you see how saying 'the only reason to mention distrust of government here is if you want to overthrow it' could make people uneasy? In a different context -- in the context of censorship -- it would be like saying 'the only reason to mention the holocaust in a discussion on censorship is if the person is denying the holocaust'. Or, if you like, 'mentioning the distrust you have of your psychopathic neighbor in the context of gun ownership means murdering your neighbor and installing a different one'. It's non sequitur. No, I'm positive I didn't say that at all. I said that I support gun control, but that doesn't imply banning guns from unordinary people. I said that obtaining a weapon should be very difficult and involve mandatory training and inspection, but that doesn't imply that unordinary people couldn't get firearms legally either. Do you mean that it isn't government oppression because it is backed by the majority? See, I think there is a cultural divide. To someone in the US, "government oppression" means that individuals are being deprived of liberty by the government (that happens to be what it literally means as well). Otherwise you're failing to see that government oppression can be greatly applauded by the public. In fact, it usually is.

Well armed and highly regulated? Yeah... I was sure you were trolling or setting up a punch line or something, but... ah, whatever... no point in being cruel when nobody is even listening to themselves. Somebody just unironically introduced the idea of a militia in a thread on gun control. These things happen in reasonable debate...