Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage

[koberulz]

Obviously I was referring to illegal drugs. That can be inferred quite easily from context. Marijuana, cocaine, heroin, LSD, MDMA, so on, so forth.

[Azdgari]

A ban on illegal guns?  Quite a concept.

[koberulz]

Making them illegal would naturally ban them, banning them would naturally make them illegal, yes. I don't, however, see how you inventing this redundancy just to point it out is in any way relevant to the issue. Maybe you should stop coming into threads and nitpicking semantics to no particular purpose.

[Agamemnon]

Obviously I was referring to illegal drugs. That can be inferred quite easily from context. Marijuana, cocaine, heroin, LSD, MDMA, so on, so forth.

In order for the comparison to be valid ALL drugs would have to be banned across the board for private possession and use. That would include over-the-counter medications, prescription drugs as well as legal uses of the drugs you mentioned above. Anything the government defined as a "drug" would be included in the ban.

Then you would see a collapse of the legitimate industries that have been built up around the legal drug trade comparable to the collapse I described about the gun industry.

[koberulz]

On the other hand...

A huge source of federal, state and local tax revenue would be lost. It would be a massive economic disaster.

In their place a thriving black market would spring up, and it would be like a re-enactment of the 1930's, except instead of alcohol it would be firearms. Prisons would be overflowing with criminals.

Is all perfectly true of illegal drugs.

[Agamemnon]

No, it is not. We haven't had a massive economic disaster because we aren't taxing illegal drugs.

You take a portion of what I said out of context so that it looks like you still have a valid comparison. You don't.

[Azdgari]

Making them illegal would naturally ban them, banning them would naturally make them illegal, yes. I don't, however, see how you inventing this redundancy just to point it out is in any way relevant to the issue. Maybe you should stop coming into threads and nitpicking semantics to no particular purpose.

I was just reinforcing Agamemnon's very valid point that you are making an invalid comparison.

[koberulz]

No, it is not. We haven't had a massive economic disaster because we aren't taxing illegal drugs.

You take a portion of what I said out of context so that it looks like you still have a valid comparison. You don't.

No, but that they could be taxing it and everything about the black market and whatnot is still valid.

[Agamemnon]

Anyone that has heard the fables of "the boy who cried wolf" or "chicken little" ought to be able to recognize that same behavior in the NRA's claims that the wolf is killing the flock. The only difference here is that the townspeople never get the hint that the alarms are false. That's great for the NRA, because it keeps the cash rolling in.

Anyone who considers her or himself to be a skeptic ought to be seriously skeptical of the outrageous claims and rants that the NRA and its supporters put out.

[Agamemnon]

No, but that they could be taxing it and everything about the black market and whatnot is still valid.

They could be taxing the private sale of guided surface to air missles, too. Doesn't mean we ought to allow it.

[koberulz]

Your claim is that cocaine may be used to shoot down airplanes? Interesting theory.

[Agamemnon]

No, that is not my claim and you know it.

I am drawing a valid comparison between controlled substances and controlled weapons in order to show you that your point about taxation has no merit.

[koberulz]

There are decent reasons to control missiles. What decent reasons are there to control drugs?

[Agamemnon]

It doesn't matter what the reasons are. This discussion is about firearms laws, not drug laws. Why do you want to change the topic?

[Seppuku]

There are decent reasons to control missiles. What decent reasons are there to control drugs?

Decent reasons to control missiles? What about your civil liberties? Isn't that enough reason to NOT control missiles? I can think of potential situations where missiles would come in handy, especially over guns or knives.

[Azdgari]

Hell, what if the government decided to go all tyrannical?  Those surface-to-air missiles would be damned useful for shooting down government aircraft.  Right?

[screwtape]

Yeah.  However will we overthrow a tyranical government if we cannot match their firepower?  Stealth cruise missiles for everyone!  Naturally, they will carry nuclear payloads.  M.A.D. is the only thing that will keep those politicians in line.

I must also conduct intelligence gathering and wiretapping on the same scale as the NSA to make sure the gummint isn't secretly plotting my demise.

Wild how libertarian ideas taking to their logical conclusion end in paranoia, complete chaos and collapse of society, innit?

[Agamemnon]

Hey, paranoia is what keeps the NRA rolling in money, so don't knock it.

[Seppuku]

What about invasion? You can't trust the government to do the right thing? And well, if there's a bomber heading straight for your village, you'll be fucked if you're waiting for the armed forces to come save you. Heat seeking missiles will come in handy. These things have happened before, no doubt they'll happen again. Pearl Harbour was practically defenseless against the Japanese, people in the UK had to retreat from the main cities or into bunkers during WW2 because of the Germans bombing them - think how different things would be if people could defend themselves in those situations?

The second amendment was put in place for similar reasons, the US feared invasion from the British, you couldn't rely on the military to protect everyone or cover every entry from where the British might send their forces, hence it became a right to possess your own firearm. Today's threats are very different, I mean, newly independent America didn't have aircrafts to worry about or people bombing their towns and villages, I don't think a gun would take down a Russian bomber,  or any thing the middle east, China or Korea may wish to throw at us. Having missiles is well within your right to bear arms, surely?

[koberulz]

None of any of this invalidates my prior point.

[Agamemnon]

What prior point? You mean the red herring you are throwing out there to distract from the fact that you have nothing to refute MY prior points?

[Seppuku]

So we should be able to possess missiles for our own protection? Nukes too? All complete with the right to bear arms.

Well, I'd hate to live in that neighbourhood, though I doubt I would for very long.

[koberulz]

There are decent reasons to control missiles. What decent reasons are there to control drugs?

You all seem to be arguing against a point I've never made.

[Agamemnon]

Yeah, that's the red herring I thought you were talking about.

It isn't relevant to the topic at hand, so I have no reason to respond to it.

[koberulz]

How exactly is it a red herring?

[Agamemnon]

Because it is off-topic in this particular discussion and has no bearing on it. It is a distraction from the discussion about weapons laws.

[Seppuku]

I'm not on the topic of drugs, I'm still on the topic of gun ownership, because I'm not trying to change the subject.

I'm curious as to whether you stand by these arguments for legalisation of missiles. You've used the right to bear arms as your defense because you consider it a civil liberty we should all have, you've argued that a person ought to have the right and means to defend themselves regardless of how it effects how many people die a year as a result because owning a gun doesn't kill people, firing one does - murder is illegal so they've broken the law anyway - you've conjured up several situations where you could potentially use a gun to protect yourself and consider them to be more significant than if people die as a result of the legalisation - so those lives don't matter so long as everybody has the right to bear arms. Each of these arguments, as far as I can see provide defense for the ownership of the missiles, however, now you've turned around and said, "there are decent reasons to control missiles", surely that's in conflict with your previous arguments when suggesting everybody should have the right to possess a firearm to protect themselves and their loved ones?

When you think about the circumstance surrounding the 2nd amendment, it doesn't make the scenario I provided all that absurd. Especially with militant countries posing a thread to the west.

[koberulz]

There are decent reasons to control guns, too. The question is whether or not they are more reasonable than the reasons not to, a point I wasn't covering.

Because it is off-topic in this particular discussion and has no bearing on it. It is a distraction from the discussion about weapons laws.

Oh. I didn't realise 'tangent' and 'red herring' were synonyms, or that it is utterly necessary for tangents to never occur on this board. I was under the impression that a red herring referred to an irrelevant point made by a poster in an effort to avoid answering questions on a particular subject. My bad.

[Agamemnon]

Because it is off-topic in this particular discussion and has no bearing on it. It is a distraction from the discussion about weapons laws.

Oh. I didn't realise 'tangent' and 'red herring' were synonyms, or that it is utterly necessary for tangents to never occur on this board. I was under the impression that a red herring referred to an irrelevant point made by a poster in an effort to avoid answering questions on a particular subject. My bad.

You are trying to make an irrelevant point, apparently in an effort to distract from the good points I made earlier and your apparent inability to refute them. If that isn't the case, then I apologize, but then I will assume that you have tacitly agreed with all of my earlier points? If not then please show me where I am wrong and we can discuss it.

If you want to talk about the problems with current drug laws then I suggest you start a new topic about it, because I'm not interested in discussing it.