Should the Second Amendment apply to Biden voters? Should gun businesses refuse to serve people who voted Biden

[KLB]

And as for you, why don't you talk a lot more about what you think about all these things rather than trying to trap people in argumentation. I don't know about others, but it makes me not trust you.

Agreed. Giving opinions is better than acting like a teacher trying to lead someone with questions. That seems to be what gets the most ire around here. Different people read the questions and see different things. Those predisposed to not like him tend to see his questions through a certain lens. As someone more neutral, I sometimes see what they see, but often see something else. Dispensing with the leading questions could help alleviate some of that.

 

[Chewie]

That would be speech.

I think that even that is under attack.

 

[Chewie]

Arms don’t make a revolution. Ideas do. Tyrants fear ideas far more than arms.

It's also arms that can support the idea. So in reality a revolution takes both. Arms being one of the tools in the arsenal.

 

[Chewie]

We were talking about the affect of speech concerning tyrants, and how the idea is more important than the actual arms, but unbeknownst to you, you offered a Segway to victims.
Your previously stated contention, is that arms supersede “ideas,” and then you give possibly the worst example ever, and cite Jews. Germans didnt just pick up one day, and start killing Jews. They were indoctrinated... with “ideas.” The campaign of hate against them was pursued fervently; most notably through the most popular book in Nazi Germany “Mein Kampf.” Further, most Jews were even killed by arms, in the traditional sense, but from gas.
And yes, I hope your done entertaining me... but it’s been a hoot though.

Kind of sounds like the indoctrination occurring today, at least to me.

 

[Kutnupe14]

It's also arms that can support the idea. So in reality a revolution takes both. Arms being one of the tools in the arsenal.

Do guns kill people?

 

[Chewie]

Do guns kill people?

Yep, and pitchforks, torches, fists, hammers, all sorts of tools can kill. Even words (albeit rarely). They can all be used to defend as well as subdue or deter.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Yep, and pitchforks, torches, fists, hammers, all sorts of tools can kill. Even words (albeit rarely). They can all be used to defend as well as subdue or deter.

I’ve never seen a gun kill a person all by itself. How does that work? Hell, if inanimate object are able to kill on their own, indiscriminately, then I might have to rethink my beliefs on gun bans.

 

[Chewie]

I’ve never seen a gun kill a person all by itself. How does that work? Hell, if inanimate object are able to kill on their own, indiscriminately, then I might have to rethink my beliefs on gun bans.

As I said, a gun is a tool. Did you see the word tool? I know you're smarter than that.

 

[jamil]

I’ve never seen a gun kill a person all by itself. How does that work? Hell, if inanimate object are able to kill on their own, indiscriminately, then I might have to rethink my beliefs on gun bans.

You know what he meant. More precisely, guns are a tool that can be used to kill people.

 

[Kutnupe14]

You know what he meant. More precisely, guns are a tool that can be used to kill people.

And you’re telling me he didn’t know what I meant, when I asked if guns kill people?

 

[Kutnupe14]

As I said, a gun is a tool. Did you see the word tool? I know you're smarter than that.

Like I said, I’ve never seen a gun kill someone all by itself.... never seen a “tool,” fix something all by itself either.

We don’t get to flip flop our arguments. Guns don’t kill people. People kill people. That’s a long held gun rights argument against people who want to ban guns. We place the credit (blame) on the person (idea), not the firearms or “tool.” The point you want to start saying that firearms are the “reason,” behind something, rather that the person who wields it, is the point that you’re passing on culpability from the individual to the object, justifying legislation that addresses that item specifically.

 

[jamil]

And you’re telling me he didn’t know what I meant, when I asked if guns kill people?

That’s ridiculous.

 

[jamil]

Like I said, I’ve never seen a gun kill someone all by itself.... never seen a “tool,” fix something all by itself either.

We don’t get to flip flop our arguments. Guns don’t kill people. People kill people. That’s a long held gun rights argument against people who want to ban guns. We place the credit (blame) on the person (idea), not the firearms or “tool.” The point you want to start saying that firearms are the “reason,” behind something, rather that the person who wields it, is the point that you’re passing on culpability from the individual to the object, justifying legislation that addresses that item specifically.

This is a point I don’t think needed to be made. I did not take it that he was saying that it’s the guns that kill people. That phrase, “guns don’t kill people, people kill people” is older than dirt. If you’re on the pro gun side, which he obviously is, it’s an axiom. Even if he uses imprecise language, we all know what he meant.

 

[Kutnupe14]

This is a point I don’t think needed to be made. I did not take it that he was saying that it’s the guns that kill people. That phrase, “guns don’t kill people, people kill people” is older than dirt. If you’re on the pro gun side, which he obviously is, it’s an axiom. Even if he uses imprecise language, we all know what he meant.

No, it’s a point that needs to be made. Do you even know “why” these points are being made? Because your jumping into a discussion that you haven’t been a party to, obviously not understanding why ideas are being posted in the way that they are. If you’re looking for engagement, at least know why you’re engaging.

 

[jamil]

No, it’s a point that needs to be made. Do you even know “why” these points are being made? Because your jumping into a discussion that you haven’t been a party to, obviously not understanding why ideas are being posted in the way that they are. If you’re looking for engagement, at least know why you’re engaging.

Why would you assume that? I’ve follewed the whole “ideas make the revolution” part of the conversation. It’s not until you started taking something he said wrongly, that I even joined that conversation.

Two things can be true at the same time. Ideas do indeed make the revolution. Then at some point you get to the nitty gritty, because not everyone is moved to join a cause by the same ideas. At some point they bring the guns.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Why would you assume that? I’ve follewed the whole “ideas make the revolution” part of the conversation. It’s not until you started taking something he said wrongly, that I even joined that conversation.

Two things can be true at the same time. Ideas do indeed make the revolution. Then at some point you get to the nitty gritty, because not everyone is moved to join a cause by the same ideas. At some point they bring the guns.

Then guns do kill people... and I never again want to hear the argument placing blame on the individual in a position superior to that of the gun they used.

 

[KLB]

Why would you assume that? I’ve follewed the whole “ideas make the revolution” part of the conversation. It’s not until you started taking something he said wrongly, that I even joined that conversation.

Two things can be true at the same time. Ideas do indeed make the revolution. Then at some point you get to the nitty gritty, because not everyone is moved to join a cause by the same ideas. At some point they bring the guns.

Things don't always devolve to armed revolution.

 

[Chewie]

Then guns do kill people... and I never again want to hear the argument placing blame on the individual in a position superior to that of the gun they used.

Oh please...……..People control tools and you know that. Any tool can be used to kill, logic dictates that you understand that, if you don't you may have an issue. If you are arguing for the sake of arguing, Oh Well. Enjoy yourself.

 

[printcraft]

Then guns do kill people... and I never again want to hear the argument placing blame on the individual in a position superior to that of the gun they used.

Anti-gunner says what?

 

[Kutnupe14]

Oh please...……..People control tools and you know that. Any tool can be used to kill, logic dictates that you understand that, if you don't you may have an issue. If you are arguing for the sake of arguing, Oh Well. Enjoy yourself.

Perhaps my memory is longer that most, because the argument is related to the "pen" being mightier than the "sword" discussion from much earlier, that you decided to necromance. The contention is that tyrants fear speech more than they fear arms, and that it's ideas that make people decide to engage in violent revolts... not simply having arms. Perhaps you did not understand that argument, are were simply jumping into a conversation you did not understand, as it is obvious with your "people control tools," you at least recognize the concept if not understanding that you were strengthening my argument.