(no subject)
12/6/13 19:05![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
gunslnger.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticshttp://reason.com/archives/2013/06/12/three-reasons-the-nothing-to-hide-crowd
http://www.cato.org/blog/why-nsa-collecting-phone-records-problem
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110524/00084614407/privacy-is-not-secrecy-debunking-if-youve-got-nothing-to-hide-argument.shtml
http://www.computerweekly.com/blogs/the-data-trust-blog/2009/02/debunking-a-myth-if-you-have-n.html
There are a significant number of people who respond to any revelation that government is violating the law (yes, the Constitution is part of the law) with a shrug and "I've got nothing to hide". These people are selfish fools at best. They are not looking at the bigger picture and/or aren't considering other people. Plus, they probably aren't paying attention to the fact that everyone in America is currently a criminal, that everyone violates a law with serious penalties at some point, whether you know it or not. (And the fact that that is the case is another problem, but that's outside the scope of my point here.)
Even Biden and Obama railed against what they are themselves supporting now, before they were in power. That alone should be enough to make you stop and think about what having that kind of power available can do to people.
http://www.cato.org/blog/why-nsa-collecting-phone-records-problem
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110524/00084614407/privacy-is-not-secrecy-debunking-if-youve-got-nothing-to-hide-argument.shtml
http://www.computerweekly.com/blogs/the-data-trust-blog/2009/02/debunking-a-myth-if-you-have-n.html
There are a significant number of people who respond to any revelation that government is violating the law (yes, the Constitution is part of the law) with a shrug and "I've got nothing to hide". These people are selfish fools at best. They are not looking at the bigger picture and/or aren't considering other people. Plus, they probably aren't paying attention to the fact that everyone in America is currently a criminal, that everyone violates a law with serious penalties at some point, whether you know it or not. (And the fact that that is the case is another problem, but that's outside the scope of my point here.)
Even Biden and Obama railed against what they are themselves supporting now, before they were in power. That alone should be enough to make you stop and think about what having that kind of power available can do to people.
(no subject)
Date: 13/6/13 13:29 (UTC)What makes you exclude tanks, as opposed to the rest? What's this arbitrary criterion that distinguishes between the various types of arms, and makes some acceptable and others unacceptable? Who's to define that? You? Based on what criteria? Why not fighter jets?
You may believe background checks have nothing to do with your comment, but I'm still willing to explore the other point of view regarding that matter. You might or might not want to address that, granted. But I'd be glad if you would not opt out of that part of the issue. Because that's something I'm still failing to understand about the stance of gun rights advocates. Namely: how exactly does the existence of background checks translate into taking away people's guns, particularly those of law-abiding citizens who don't have anything to be concerned about, as far as those background checks are concerned. Wouldn't it be good if the origin of guns in the country can be tracked, without necessarily depriving the populace of them?
(no subject)
Date: 13/6/13 13:39 (UTC)This is quite comical. I made no claims about having a list, now you are asking "Who's to define that? You?".
(no subject)
Date: 13/6/13 13:44 (UTC)How should I interpret it? You "would say"? Did you toss a coin to define what you "would say" about tanks?
Dude, there should be a reliable criterion for such a distinction. Otherwise we'd end up with a collection of arbitrary positions that have no foundation in legal practice.
My point is that as times evolve, so should legislation. If it doesn't things start to become rather complicated.
Also your unwillingness to address any of my points has been noted. Although that's kind of disappointing, fair enough, I guess.
(no subject)
Date: 13/6/13 14:07 (UTC)Let the semi-malfunctioning collective jump in in 3, 2, 1...
You asked a question a while back, I answered it, you came back with a boatload of questions, I answered some, you got comical.
What about the 1812 war specifically do you have in mind?
It would be the part where we were attacked by the British and needed to defend ourselves.
How should I interpret it? You "would say"? Did you toss a coin to define what you "would say" about tanks?
Dude, there should be a reliable criterion for such a distinction.
This is a silly tactic. If I were to try answering, would you go back to " Who's to define that? You?". And it's quite easy to distinguish very dark gray from light gray (a tank being very dark gray), and here you are wanting a clear line separating light gray from the rest.
(no subject)
Date: 13/6/13 14:18 (UTC)And here I had this faint hope that you were really attempting a sensible conversation here. One that wouldn't eventually resort to throwing some arbitrary statements with little to zero criteria built into them, and responding with "I'm so not going to speak to you any more" whenever asked for actual details. Oh well then.
(no subject)
Date: 13/6/13 14:35 (UTC)I answered the question. Instead of addressing what I said, you asked a bunch of other questions (derailing the issue at hand). I answered some, then a few more. and here you are with the "you can't answer, respond, have a reasonable discussion" schtick.
(no subject)
Date: 13/6/13 14:45 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 13/6/13 15:29 (UTC)Truth is, you don't want to give a meaningful answer because you don't have one. None of you do. It's just "But, But, the Constitution!!!!" being used as a knee-jerk mantra, but whenever asked to dig somewhat deeper into the issue, things start to become rather "greyish".
(no subject)
Date: 13/6/13 15:43 (UTC)The War of 1812 was my answer. How that doesn't obviously answer the question is beyond me. How you came up with the Civil War is a bit beyond me as well.
Look after the comma
Yes, after the comma where it says " the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".
(no subject)
Date: 13/6/13 16:11 (UTC)Have you been trying to confuse me, mhmmm?
(no subject)
Date: 14/6/13 01:49 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 14/6/13 02:14 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 14/6/13 02:19 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 14/6/13 02:58 (UTC)A sniper (not the real kind) in a pre-online discussion would be someone who takes "pot shots" at people. Sniping,roughly translated for you youngins would be snark, or in extreme cases; de-railing or even trolling.
I suppose a sniper could be one who hunts snipe, a rather obscure reference involving camping noobs, so probably not applicable here.
To the best of my knowledge and memory (and I'm too lazy to look it up) You are basically correct (below) as a "pure" rifle used by an actual "sniper" is usually bolt action, and while they are varied, depending on the shooter, are used primarily for competition shooting (I'm sure there are cases where they are used for assassinations).
I could go on, but this thread has gotten so far OT from the post, I feel almost guilty ;)
(no subject)
Date: 14/6/13 03:40 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 14/6/13 08:39 (UTC)