ParadigmShifter
Random Nonsense Generator
Well it has little to do with gun violence does it Mr. Farm 
The best way to decrease gun violence is to outlaw guns for civilians
- Thread starter Elta
- Start date
So 3 or 3 thousand, a riot is still a riot.
The Storming of the Bastille, regardless of it's popular support, was a riot.
JohnRM
Don't make me destroy you
And, I would not even begin to think that I could speak for other nations, but what I can tell you is that, almost to a man, every gun owner that I know personally would fight rather than have their rights taken away. To almost the same degree, those individuals that I do not know personally, but have spoken to, agree.
The problem, Jeelen, is that Americans are not Europeans. We do not have the same values and opinions. Our history and what is important to us, are quite different. Do not expect Americans to react similar to just any other nation. We will fight for our liberty, if backed into a corner.
Ecofarm
Deity
=/= revolution
=/= popular support
Try to read the whole definition. Stopping mid-sentence is counter-productive to understanding.
Did you read nothing I wrote?!Well it has little to do with gun violence does it Mr. Farm
West 36
Can count up to 4
People should have the right, most certainly civilians, if by that you mean only members of military would be allowed to own guns. I understand different values in different nations, but I do believe it should be a right. Regulated and not done with stupidity because it's a serious issue, but I think that should be understood. Hand guns and rifles for sure. It's when you get to assault rifles when I start getting iffy. Collectors make sense, but I feel that it could be ok for a responsible person to own one. Why? Yeah, they cause a lot of damage, but I do believe frimly that the people should have some power in comparison to the government. But then when you're dealing with tanks and airships you have a problem anyway, but, hey, it's something anyway.
Rashiminos
Fool Prophet
You know what? When you're right, you're right!
Since you're so adamant that I not deem the in your comments to be trolling, then I shall have to call them the other thing: flagrant hypocrisy. Advocating cessation of the consuming animals for sustenance on the basis of a comparison to murder while at the same time pushing for the extermination of various groups of people under the label of terrorism/dictatorship is antithetical, and therefore insulting to our intelligences and to the ideas of Gandhi. Thank you and good night.
Ecofarm
Deity
Not various groups. Only dictators/tyrants. For the greater good. Killing (and presumably eating) a lion to save 100s of lives is fine.
What does killing an innocent animal without need do for the greater good?
There's nothing hypocritcal there. You're just being absurdly absolutist and contextless.
Murder is unjustified killing. Think about it for a minute, I suspect you have the intellectual capacity to understand context.
And I do not entirely agree with Gandhi. I used him as an example to explain the philosophy - that does not mean that I agree with everything he says. Don't put words in my mouth. I don't remember claiming to be a Gandhi-ist. You know, it's possible to mention someone and not be a total tool of them. Not everything is Mohammadesque, demanding total and complete agreement.
If the purpose of allowing civilian guns is really for overthrowing the government, then shouldn't the weapon that are most effective at doing that be those that are allowed? Assaut rifles, and rocket launchers are more effective than small arms in this manner.
I don't have a problem with hunting rifles, and I understand that it may be that enabling citizens to defend against criminals might be a good thing. But I don't see armed rioting as a proper way to speak out.
Ecofarm
Deity
Dammit. Rioting is not the popular overthrow of the government!
If it was, everytime we had a riot the government would be usurped. Since when do riots usurp governments?! Revolutions do. They're DIFFERENT.
Have you no sense of scope or scale?? Are those things meaningless in your realm of definitions?
If it was, everytime we had a riot the government would be usurped. Since when do riots usurp governments?! Revolutions do. They're DIFFERENT.
Have you no sense of scope or scale?? Are those things meaningless in your realm of definitions?
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
No, Ecofarm has a point here- I assume he's endorsing a utilitarian philosophy, one which holds that the pursuit of the "greater good" is the ultimate moral goal. Of course, the thing to remember about the concept is that it does present itself as the detached, Olympian philosophy that it is sometimes percieved to be. Rather, it asserts the need for universal compassion. This can lead to the endorsement of violence, if it is believed that the damage caused by said violence is lesser than that it prevents. The principal is essentially the same as the Reciprocal Ethic- "do unto others"- merely applied on a grand scale. They both stem from the same core value, compassion.
If one subscribes to a utilitarian philosophy, the issue is not whether killing is justified or not, it's whether any particular incident is justified. As Ecofarm says, "murder is unjustified killing". Ecofarm's argument is that certain military conflicts can be justified because they, in his view, do more good than harm, while eating meat is not, because it is unnecessary.
It's not hypocrisy, at least not in principal. It's just compassion with a global view.
And, for the record, I do eat meat, but I am a hypocrite.
I'm sorry, but I consider the Storming of the Bastille to be a riot. Now back then, it may have been justified. Today, with things like free speech, an democracy, I don't see an excuse.
On the semantics, private purposes just means non state supported. If a foreign nation sanctioned such an uprising, it would be an enemy attack, not a riot. But It's not the semantics that's important, it's the morality of it.
Rashiminos
Fool Prophet
Those being groups of people who vary.
Feeds others.
Ahem. (Holds up mirror). Context here is between killing for sustenance and killing to rid a societal problem. Delineating animals as unacceptable but not plants is also another area of discussion.
The killing of animals is justified through the purpose of sustenance. Equating that to killing an innocent being on the belief that it's death instead of livelihood would suit one's psyche is ridiculous. The problem here is that you think eating (so-and-so) is not justifiable, and I would contend that if we applied a similar metric to dealing with dictators/tyrants/etc, then that too would be barbaric and unjustifiable.
Granted. but perhaps this distinction makes him an unsuitable example for your argument, no?
I'm not saying riot and revolution are synonyms. But if you give people guns and tell them it's for overthrowing the government, then you are encouraging riots as a means of revolution.
EDIT: A revolution is not on the same scale as riot. Revolution is a cause, rioting is a means.
amadeus
burning out his fuse out here alone
I'd like to know why they themselves put it in the Constitution then.
Rashiminos
Fool Prophet
Riots being breakdowns of law in which people do what they want in the hope that the mayhem will stay consequences of those acts, whereas Revolutions are concerted attempts to replace/restructure governments through a wide array of methods, not all necessarily being violent. A long-winded way of saying that I agree that riots are not popular movements to overthrow governments.
Besides, a more appropriate term for an armed revolution is a rebellion.
It was an established ideal of the time, but even they could not foresee the contingencies of our present circumstances, or even come to consensus on all of their contemporary issues (slavery, enfranchisement, government's role in commerce, etc).
Ecofarm
Deity
I already said, If you MUST kill an animal to survive, fine. But this is not the case with the developed world and food requirements.
No it is not. It is a matter of NECESSITY. And incurring the least damage.
No, he's a perfect example to illustrate the philosophy. Blowing everything up to an absolute and tyranical following is your problem.
Totally incorrect. It is entirely a matter of scale and thus POPULAR support. Now you need to look up the word revolution, it is not the "desire to make change".
To argue from a semantic point of view, I'd have to find a source that calls the Storming of the Bastille a riot, without totally dissing the french revolution. Wiki is such a source. I can't be bothered to research better, but I am sure they exist.
But our real disagreement is whether it could be considered right to lead an violent rebellion against our government. I say that's no way to go about things.
I wasn't comparing Americans (i.e. US citizens) with Europeans, will ignore your implied suggestion that Europeans will not fight for their liberty (an archaic word, for which I should substitute freedom) and frankly, I find it disturbing that citizens should fight for some "liberty" being taken away from them. I hope you do not mean that literally, for that would just confirm that rights (such as "gun rights") should not be decided by the individual, but by society at large, as the Fouding Fathers were well aware of.
Unfortunately, the US have developed significantly since the 18th century frontier state into a 21st century world power, without gun legislation keeping pace. What happens when citizens misuse their "gun rights" can be viewed in the media on a montly, sometimes weekly basis. With every right comes responsibility; it is the latter which is lacking and which is the reason why society recognizes a government in the first place: to secure the rights of the individual against less responsible individuals. I submit to you that the values that you are referring to do not suit a modern society at all. (And I am well aware of the intricacies of US law and US history.)
Rashiminos
Fool Prophet
Failure on practical grounds.
It's only necessary to eat. Right now you're contending slaughtering animals is worse than killing plants. I'm interested in seeing your view on whether exceeding the minimum nutritional requirements works for or against the "greater good." and what you base your assessment of "least damage" on. For that matter, what would constitute the minimum for you?
He's not. His position on nonviolence towards humans or animals is the same position. You hold different attitudes towards killing terrorists and slaughtering animals for food. You then equate the latter with murder, ignoring the obvious distinction in the end result. (Murderers don't generally eat their victims). In the former case, you do not equate killing terrorists with murder, citing the end result as justification. Unless you want to redefine murder in this usage, then there's a contradiction floating around in your posts.
