Thursday, April 04, 2013

Idiot - n. Someone who doesn't know how to shoot everyone (Gun nut definitons)

There's another new news source on Google+ ironically called Reason. I say ironically because so far they've shown so very little of it. They think reason is that the only problem with guns is that we don't have enough of them.

I really do grow weary of this debate. You already saw what I did yesterday, using the Constitution to completely debunk any idea that it somehow guarantees completely uncontrolled gun ownership everywhere, or that it says we can have them because we might need to overthrow the guvment or something.

Now let's see how idiots who have clearly never read the document other than their precious 2nd Amendment love calling others idiots if they don't know how a gun works. Because that is common sense or something.

That link leads to the Constitution post of yesterday. We'll see if these people are so advanced as to understand what they've read. Although apparently idiots read while smart people handle guns, according to them. And not enough of those guns spontaneously discharge into their owners for the sake of our gene pool, which is why we have the Idiocracy that we do today.

Ah yes, it caused an argument... see behind the jump:


Enjoy everyone. I'm off for a fun filled several days of cigar smoking, gay sex, and absolute debauchery.

Yeah... while in Vegas, this argument continued without me. You can skim through their arguments or just skip down to my final one. But either way, the sum of it is that people who don't want their kids shot are Hitler, while people who want their guns no matter what are just big ol heroes. Oh, and liberals suck. That's about all they ever have. Yeah yeah, only law abiding citizens will blah blah blah... thanks, Einstein.

Sigh... more after the jump. Far too much more.

Sifu's method is clearly to throw a ton of shit at you and then hope you won't actually check up on it because he seems to think liberals are too stupid to read mass amounts. I don't actually have to read those mass amounts because he reveals that, before he even begins them, he is missing the point entirely. And yet I still go through it and see massive fails of argument, as well as factual baloney.

For example, quoting me: "It's not really subjective opinion that crazy people don't need free access to the weapons by which they'll commit mass murders." You can see he insists that I made the claim. I'm saying I made the claim! I'm debating that someone said it was subjective opinion. He can't even put two and two together here. He just weaves a web he hopes will be too confusing for me.

And I don't get stuck in bullshit webs.

Wait, what? Not only was I using someone else's definiton of artillery (Sifu's, so ask HIM, clearly he can't get through Sifu's web of bullshit) but I'm at the goddamned airport, and had to look it over a little too quickly on my phone. That last paragraph is what caught me...

And now that I look it over, I wasn't wrong. Talking point talking point talking point, and some silliness about the meaning of the word dictate. And yet this falls under equivocation because the accusation was one of dictatorship over guns. So while dictate can mean merely to tell, they are assuming there's some dictatorship plot against them. And then that last sentence, which is just fucking absurd! 

Now let's pretend I'm not getting the point at all, shall we?

We are lawless in that regard. Lawless means to not have a law. We are lawless in regards to gun control. I didn't expect you to make that effort. Besides I didn't imply it. You did. You said you weren't going to put words in my mouth and then did. I'm... sorry... can't stop laughing here.

And finally, these clowns...

And there you have it. The best they can throw at me. Time for me to just lay it out:

From then on, it's a very silly attempt to call everything I say a fallacy, but fallaciously so. Because someone might have emotions involved in the shootings, I am obviously appealing to emotion (even though I'm not saying it's wrong because of emotions at all, which is how that's done) nor is it an appeal to population to talk about he popularity of the idea of gun control when I only brought it up as a side point, not declaring popularity to be the reason gun control is right. These guys know nothing of argumentative fallacy.

Facts being cute little plays on definitions that are irrelevant, and completely ignoring the validity of the point, that it is entirely constitutional for us to amend our constitution to our present needs, violates nothing of the 2nd Amendment at all, and is within the purview of the government to do so via the First Article of the Constitution. Interesting he avoids that I've already done this.

Right makes right. I didn't say might did at all. And it's not propaganda, nor is it supported via emotion in any way whatsoever. I've processed their every word and there is zero proof that there is anything unconstitutional about amending the constitution based on present needs of weapon advancement.

Idiots who keep saying nothing abound, actually, Rog.

I'm still waiting for you to start. You've not at all shown that it's unconstitutional to amend anything against unlegislated gun access for all, or that in reality the constitution doesn't even state such a right. You have, however, called a lot of dead people irrelevant, not to mention those terrorized by such events. After all, out of terror from the 9/11 attacks (only a few thousand, so really quite irrelevant I guess) we started two different wars causing a much larger amount to be killed. I hardly think saying a small number is irrelevant is making your case, nor does it support my case as being entirely appealed upon emotion.

But that is what you'll repeatedly claim, and wrongly so, hoping repetition magic will make it so.

Round 93478498374 with the idiocy...

Saying that a certain amount is an irrelevant amount is, in fact, an arbitrary opinion.

With all this song and dance, and refusal to stop with the "Yeah-HUH!" arguing, I have ceased to be even remotely nice about it now.

I think what so many people do is research what they want to say to make it sound like they can make a great case. No matter what you say, they drag the conversation towards the tracks in which they feel comfortable, so that it'll go their way. I am not there to make the case about taking guns away, but they need to think we are so they can go into their pseudo-intellectual rant previously rehearsed.

Looking it over one last time I realize something interesting. Notice how he insisted that we simply run the risk of this in being in society? Why should the risk be ours? He keeps bringing up a number of ~1% or some such nonsense and, while accusing me of arbitrary claims, insists this is an irrelevant number. Seems arbitrary that he decide so. But we can't do anything about massacres and such because it'll disrupt his need to have unregistered guns.

Why can't the risk be his? My appeal to reality is that these gun massacres actually happened. His appeal to emotion is his paranoia that our government might round registered gun owners up some day, and it scares him so very very much. I'm appealing to something that happened a hell of a lot more than the thing he fears. Because what he fears has happened zero times in America. 

And the idea that registration leads to confiscation is post hoc ergo propter hoc. I can return their mantra that guns don't kill people; people kill people, by making an analogy. Gun registration doesn't imprison people. People imprison people. And they did it not based solely on gun registration. They did it based on race and prejudice. If this had any danger at all of happening in our country, he has nothing to fear, because it sure as hell wouldn't happen to him. It'd happen to gays or Muslims or someone else, and it'd happen under a flag-waving fascist regime, which I don't see this government being remotely organized enough to make happen.

The fact remains. No new amendment even needs be made. There's no reason we can't do gun registration and control. It's not unconstitution. The 2nd only amends the Articles, and only does so for people to keep in control those in the militia (and he didn't even use the right definition of that, nor was he right about the Supreme Court's decision on any other part of the 2nd Amendment at all) which nobody does with their weapons any more. We don't have a militia, we have a military, and times have radically changed. You don't use guns to overpower any out of control army person who comes to your home. The amendment is outdated and does nothing to grant anybody and everybody right to any weapon they choose.

And these motherfuckers sure as hell aren't part of any well-regulated militia. You take the risk of society, and stop putting it on the backs of children and moviegoers and people attending political rallies or anything public at all. You take the risk. Registration is not unconstitutional and is long overdue.