SuaveSocialist said:
1. Because the consumption of life from murder hoses keep eclipsing that of knives (might have something to do with their efficiency, lethality, and ranged effectiveness), so they hog most of the attention. |
1. So you would argue in favor of knife / sharp weapon control, but these murder hoses (love that goofy term lol, not like guns could be used for any other purpose: recreation shooting, hunting, hobbyists, etc no they are tools of murder and have no other function right?) are hogging the spotlight? What about baseball bats? A piece of lumber? A glass bottle (broken in half)? Should we regulate those too? Eventually we will just get to the point where the only way to truly protect people from this is to lock everyone in a padded cell because that would be the only solution. Almost anything can be used as a weapon. Guns are more efficient yes, but they are not even the most efficient (could do a lot more damage with a bomb or chemicals, or, as the Nice attack showed us, a properly driven truck ramming into a crowd of people).
2. Don't give them any ideas. There are ways to ban things without actually banning them. High taxes / regulations already results in fewer cars on the road and thus less people with them. You are still evading my question though. If the goal here is to supposedly reduce casulaties by limiting access to deadly weapons / etc then how will you achieve that? Ban everything? The Nice, France attack as a recent prominent example was perpetrated with a rented truck. Should we put more extreme regulations on truck rentals now too? How will that stop someone from just stealing a truck? I believe the point ISIS was making with attacks like this and the stabbings etc is that there is nothing that you can do to stop them; they will always find a weapon of some form to commit terrorist acts and, in this case, they are right. What would possibly stop one of these attacks, however, would be an armed citizenry. Maybe one or several people with a sidearm could have stopped or slowed down that and other rampages before they claimed more lives. Considering the draconican gun laws in Europe, what does a terrorist have to fear? No one except for the police will be shooting at them so they can just go hog wild.
3. This is a Gish Gallop site you are linking. I'm not going to respond to dozens of stories of supposed corruption. Interesting I see all the usual suspects on here, NYT, Washington post, NBC, Guardian, etc. Considering what we know about media bias against Trump thanks to this Harvard study http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/jackson-richman/2017/05/19/harvard-study-agrees-mrc-media-biased-against-trump , I don't think a collection of highly biased and slanted stories warrants a charge of rampant corruption. Where is the smoking gun if this presidency is so wildly corrupt? Honestly, I would like to know, it would help fuel my anarcho-capitalist arguments. Also here is another Gish Gallop for you in regards to Obama's scandals (from a biased source on the right this time) http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/01/02/18-major-scandals-obama-presidency/
4. Has the NRA / Republicans come out to say that this was a man rebelling against a tyranical government? I missed that story please link it.
5. That is because it is not the NRA/ Republican's idea; it predates them both. They are referring to the likes of Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson, etc. who did actually meet to argue whether or not a revolution was justified prior to launching the American Revolution. There were debate and arguments and a tremendous amount of thinking/ planning that went into it ... our Bernie supporter, on the other hand, so far as we know acted alone and didn't exactly sound like a paradigm of good mental health and sound reasoned judgement.
6. Again, the 2nd ammendment was meant to guarantee the right to bear arms, not to give a treatise on when / how a revolution should take place or be justified. For that I recommend reading up on the American and other revolutions throughout history. It is a question that greatly interests me as it may be the logical conclusion of the libertarian / annarcho-capitalist movement as some thinkers would argue. It is a difficult question to answer, but I think most people would agree that 1 homeless man living out of a van is not the political revolutionary we are looking for.
