3 ms·

You can't really compare a public health & safety issue with piracy. Firearms are not freedom of speech. Guns kill. Just like vehicles kill and are therefore s

You can't really compare a public health & safety issue with piracy. Firearms are not freedom of speech. Guns kill. Just like vehicles kill and are therefore subject to regulation (or outright prohibition in many spaces) above individual freedom.

cle 4y ago
I'm not talking about whether it's justified to regulate firearms, abortion, or piracy. I'm talking about whether it's justified to bully your adversaries with lawsuits in order to drain their resources. The particular legal issue doesn't matter--it's subverting and abusing the justice system.
hatware 4y ago
You sure can when the tactics are the same. They should have made the second amendment the first. Then I think you'd get it.
- the_gipsy 4y ago
  Then any movement == any movement, by that logic. That's just the essence of politics. Pro-gun does fit the comparison much better, because there are obvious industry profits behind the lobbies - at the cost of violence and death.
  - collegeburner 4y ago
    i think you're confusing the massive and well-funded military lobby (the people who make 40mm autocannon) with the mixed civilian/military/police small arms industry (who make your everyday .223 AR-15). it's much harder to make it in the latter as a small businessman due to massively onerous regulation. edit: tired of this. i own lots of guns and have never killed anybody. i had this same argument with somebody else yesterday over financial KYC: we do not fight crime by stripping law-abiding Americans of their freedoms and subjecting them to increased state control.
    - the_gipsy 4y ago
      Well, anyway, this pro-gun stuff has nothing to do with piracy freedom. Piracy hurts some millionaire CEOs bank accounts, and guns literally kill people.
P5fRxh5kUvp2th 4y ago
This is going to sound harsh, but you need to hear it I think. Society has done a really good job of allowing people to pretend reality doesn't exist and not die for it. See, in the past, you had to believe bears were not to be poked or you risked dying from poking a bear. At some point someone had to learn this lesson. Probably Bold Billy poked a bear, his buddy Timid Terry watched the bear eat him, then decided poking bears wasn't a good idea. Timid Terry then went back to the village and described what happened to Bold Billy, showed everyone Bold Billy's remains, and thus was their respect for reality both reaffirmed and their survival increased. So then the village started teaching its children to be careful around caves and not to poke bears. Jackass Jerry grew up hearing stories by Timid Terry about the time Bold Billy helped a bear make it through winter by allowing said bear to partake of his flesh. Only Jackass Jerry never believed it, so one day, he decided to go poke the bear. Well, Jackass Jerry turned into Jambalaya Jerry and thus the bear once again get assisted in it's preparations for the winter. And thus was the lesson taught by Bold Billy reinforced years later by Jambalaya Jerry, who wanted to make sure the rest of the village was kept safe by their understanding of reality. --- Society in general has become so good at protecting its members that many of those members can survive despite believing things that are patently untrue. Today, Jackass Jerry may never have turned into Jambalaya Jerry despite the mistaken belief that poking a bear isn't dangerous. That's just how good the guard rails are. The point is that your reasoning here is _PATENTLY_ untrue, but you've been allowed to rationalize your way into whatever feels right because the guardrails of society don't force a respect of reality on you. In this case, the reasons for regulation are many and varied. Something NOT outright killing someone is not, nor has it ever been, a justification for letting it remain unregulated. You disagree with the poster you responded to. And that's great, it's certainly within your rights to do so. But your rationalization of that disagreement is patently untrue and makes me wonder if we're looking at what would have happened if Jackass Jerry had never met a bear. Imagine if someone argued theft should be unregulated because no one died.
- the_gipsy 4y ago
  Get your head out of your ass. Jimmy-and-bear stories are for little children, it's just some weak strawman here. You keep saying I'm wrong, but can't get to the point of why. The theft/death comparison is absurd because theft and death are two different things. If you wanna own a gun, great, but the regulations should be extreme - just like anything else hazardous, like motorized vehicles. I can't speed in urban areas just because "it's muh freedom of movement" and I haven't run anybody over (yet). Statistics are statistics and guns increase crime, violence, and death.

cle 4y ago

I'm not talking about whether it's justified to regulate firearms, abortion, or piracy. I'm talking about whether it's justified to bully your adversaries with lawsuits in order to drain their resources. The particular legal issue doesn't matter--it's subverting and abusing the justice system.

hatware 4y ago

You sure can when the tactics are the same. They should have made the second amendment the first. Then I think you'd get it.

the_gipsy 4y ago
Then any movement == any movement, by that logic. That's just the essence of politics. Pro-gun does fit the comparison much better, because there are obvious industry profits behind the lobbies - at the cost of violence and death.
- collegeburner 4y ago
  i think you're confusing the massive and well-funded military lobby (the people who make 40mm autocannon) with the mixed civilian/military/police small arms industry (who make your everyday .223 AR-15). it's much harder to make it in the latter as a small businessman due to massively onerous regulation. edit: tired of this. i own lots of guns and have never killed anybody. i had this same argument with somebody else yesterday over financial KYC: we do not fight crime by stripping law-abiding Americans of their freedoms and subjecting them to increased state control.
  - the_gipsy 4y ago
    Well, anyway, this pro-gun stuff has nothing to do with piracy freedom. Piracy hurts some millionaire CEOs bank accounts, and guns literally kill people.

P5fRxh5kUvp2th 4y ago

This is going to sound harsh, but you need to hear it I think. Society has done a really good job of allowing people to pretend reality doesn't exist and not die for it. See, in the past, you had to believe bears were not to be poked or you risked dying from poking a bear. At some point someone had to learn this lesson. Probably Bold Billy poked a bear, his buddy Timid Terry watched the bear eat him, then decided poking bears wasn't a good idea. Timid Terry then went back to the village and described what happened to Bold Billy, showed everyone Bold Billy's remains, and thus was their respect for reality both reaffirmed and their survival increased. So then the village started teaching its children to be careful around caves and not to poke bears. Jackass Jerry grew up hearing stories by Timid Terry about the time Bold Billy helped a bear make it through winter by allowing said bear to partake of his flesh. Only Jackass Jerry never believed it, so one day, he decided to go poke the bear. Well, Jackass Jerry turned into Jambalaya Jerry and thus the bear once again get assisted in it's preparations for the winter. And thus was the lesson taught by Bold Billy reinforced years later by Jambalaya Jerry, who wanted to make sure the rest of the village was kept safe by their understanding of reality. --- Society in general has become so good at protecting its members that many of those members can survive despite believing things that are patently untrue. Today, Jackass Jerry may never have turned into Jambalaya Jerry despite the mistaken belief that poking a bear isn't dangerous. That's just how good the guard rails are. The point is that your reasoning here is _PATENTLY_ untrue, but you've been allowed to rationalize your way into whatever feels right because the guardrails of society don't force a respect of reality on you. In this case, the reasons for regulation are many and varied. Something NOT outright killing someone is not, nor has it ever been, a justification for letting it remain unregulated. You disagree with the poster you responded to. And that's great, it's certainly within your rights to do so. But your rationalization of that disagreement is patently untrue and makes me wonder if we're looking at what would have happened if Jackass Jerry had never met a bear. Imagine if someone argued theft should be unregulated because no one died.

the_gipsy 4y ago
Get your head out of your ass. Jimmy-and-bear stories are for little children, it's just some weak strawman here. You keep saying I'm wrong, but can't get to the point of why. The theft/death comparison is absurd because theft and death are two different things. If you wanna own a gun, great, but the regulations should be extreme - just like anything else hazardous, like motorized vehicles. I can't speed in urban areas just because "it's muh freedom of movement" and I haven't run anybody over (yet). Statistics are statistics and guns increase crime, violence, and death.