#11
|
||||
|
||||
So what's next for this guy? It'd be a real shame for him to lose his career over something, as we mentioned, most people are actually okay with. Gun companies may have railed against him, but it wasn't that long ago that people were up in arms, so to speak, over Ruger and Smith & Wesson for stuff that was much worse.
__________________
"Me fail English? That's unpossible!" |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#13
|
|||
|
|||
In my poli sci studies, I've come to realize that the only sides of debate that will draw any notice are the extremes.
Metcalf certainly angered the pro-extreme crowd. And to be honest, while I'm never going to go to an open carry rally, or counter march an MDA thing, I'm fairly hardline in my view on gun rights. I totaled it up for my taxes and I sent over $1,000 in donations to the SAF, CCRKBA, and the NRA-ILA. Not to mention an email a day and a letter a week to my congressional representation. Personally, I think Metcalf got what was coming to him. I can't hear the phrase reasonable regulation and not think of England, Australia, and Chicago.
__________________
I like to think, that before that Navy SEAL double tapped bin Laden in the head, he kicked him, so that we could truly say we put a boot in his ass. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Also, I have to say that I do find myself rolling my eyes a bit when Americans bring up British gun laws in response to calls for regulation reform. The attitude towards guns in the two countries is so different due to cultural and historic reasons that there is no way that you can reasonably equate one to the other. IMHO using British gun control laws as some sort of cautionary tale for gun regulations in the US is spurious and comes off as lazy to me. Don't get me wrong though, being a British shooter myself I would love it if I was able to recreationally shoot centerfire semi automatic rifles and handguns, but in this country I am an absolutely tiny minority who actually cares about such things, so I don't get to have my way. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Historically, and I mean this with every fiber of my being, and agree it completely, an American citizen could own what ever the hell he or she wanted.
The Revolutionary War American Army fought with cannon primarily owned by a private citizen turned Continental Colonel, Henry Knox. Privateers wrought more havoc upon the Royal Navy and British Merchant Marine than the Continental Navy, John Paul Jones theatrics aside. And yes, machine guns should be more readily available for private ownership. I have the traditional American republican (lower case r) disdain for large standing militaries, government telling me what I can and cannot do, and police forces that enforce laws against crime by statue, not crimes of intent. I understand the difference in prevailing opinions between American and English gun cultures, however, in my research, which may be wrong, weren't most of the restrictions upon English firearms ownership enacted in incremental fashion as public safety measures? That is my problem with the phrase "reasonable restriction". Gun rights are the only Constitutionally protected right that are subject to such preversions by state and federal laws. We, as Americans, wouldn't tolerate such restrictions on the right to vote, and here is my hard liner coming out, I freely equate the ballot box and cartridge box, metaphorically speaking.
__________________
I like to think, that before that Navy SEAL double tapped bin Laden in the head, he kicked him, so that we could truly say we put a boot in his ass. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
I don't think there's an issue with being angry with American left-wing "reasonable restrictions", but that's because those are never reasonable, they cater to exclusive philosophical ideals that do not account for certain freedoms that should hold true for the American people. And those freedoms should not hold true because they are in the Constitution, but because they are the most all-inclusive of any ideal or because they are the closest to being purely or morally right. The restrictions that have been proposed, or at least the major ones, in the last 20-30 years, or even the GCA, are not reasonable, but arbitrary because they are based on empiricism, and not philosophy. That is one flaw of our governing body, that it equates what is right to an arbitrary "majority" perspective (which can lead to 50/50 deadlocks) as opposed to a moral perspective that tries to account for everyone and not over or under-reach. What's more is that in creating a government, or any institutonalized system, is that there are selfish assholes who have personal desires and exploit sensationalism and partisanism in order to make a quick buck or to make themselves content, the ramifications or implications of their actions be damned. This is the underlying reason why we hate ALL politicians.
In the end, this attachment to arbitration, or to ideals that reinforce any form of selfishness, is what is wrong with any topic, especially the gun debate in America. We have people on the left exploiting the political system either for their own agenda and success in the game that is the systemic institution which is man-made and in the grand scheme, irrelevant, and we have people on the right that do the same thing, even if their fight correlates with ours. But there are people who believe for whatever reason that owning a firearm and self-reliance are good things, or bad, and they look at it with varying types of MORAL arguments and not empirical ones. The ones that are more moral are clearly the ones that are correct, and many come to the conclusion that it's more moral to own a gun and defend ones life than it is to not defend ones life. That's a whole other topic in and of itself but that's an overlay of it. And in an institution where there are numerous semantic differences between person to person, there ought to be some TRULY reasonable guidelines as to who is allowed a gun and who isn't, and they should be based in MORAL REASONING and not EMPIRICISM, which is just observation of data, which can be skewed or flawed by any number of individuals that contribute to it. This is what Metcalf meant, or ought to have meant, that at the very least, what we determine to be the limit for gun ownership in America (or any issue) should not be absolute or polarizing, but that it should be based in what is morally right. Not what any statistic says. Statistics are empirical and therefore flawed in dictating what is "right" so to speak. Not what any document dictates, including the Constitution (the Constitution is only valuable if it adheres to a morality that is all-inclusive, bear in mind, and whether or not it does this now, or has ever, is up to philosophical interpretation, which can be and is skewed and dictated properly numerous times in history, depending on morality's current progress. I'm sure the world's worst dictators all had their own "constitutions" and laws of the land which were bullshit and exclusionary) But in what we philosophically determine is for the greatest benefit of ALL people, a la John Stuart Mill. When we apply this philosophy to law and society, and consider practical application (confiscation would not necessarily work in America, and it would disenfranchise a lot of people) The answer is there. I say it's closer to the right wing where guns are present, but not reverting to a world where everyone can walk around carrying an M4A1 with an affixed M203. The whole goal of creating a society is to make life not brutish to the point where that is necessary. But we are transitioning from being vulgar predatatorial animals into civilized beings, always, so there will be a need for the means of self-protection from those who choose to be more irrationally animal than those who are rationally human. But it's not a state of nature just as much as it is not a utopia. We're somewhere in the middle, and there should be a REASONABLE limit in that middle ground, and, again, the determining factor for that cannot be on one side or the other because of how morally inconsiderate or self-defeating that is toward human progress. tl;dr Philosophy morality and rationale, not empirical evidential induction/deduction, because that will be easily skewed or flawed by anyone. |
#17
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
You're still acting as though the cause of rage somehow makes the reaction inevitable, which is a borderline argument that it is justifiable. The point is: Acting the way that pro-gunners are acting towards Metcalf casts doubt upon the RKBA community's confidence in its own moral legitimacy. The threat of violence in response to disagreement is a tool of irrational people; whether their stance is right or wrong is almost beside the point. Quote:
I'd have preferred if you tried to claim that the people who threatened Metcalf are not representative of the broader pro-gun community. That you are not doing so is disappointing. Even if you are not condoning death threats, you're still making an argument of moral equivalence.
__________________
Cry "Havoc," and let slip the hogs of war. Last edited by MT2008; 01-13-2014 at 02:54 AM. |
#18
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
I'm also surprised that you don't want a large standing military. Don't you owe your career to the fact that we have one? How do your reconcile your job with your political beliefs? Quote:
Don't you think it's strange that your mentality is shared by the IRA ("Armalite and the ballot box") and the PLO ("olive branch and the freedom fighter's gun")? When your philosophy sounds eerily similar to that of anti-Western, left-wing terrorist groups, that should give you pause.
__________________
Cry "Havoc," and let slip the hogs of war. Last edited by MT2008; 01-13-2014 at 03:04 AM. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
MT, not avoiding you're response to my post. I have several well atriculated rebuttals to your response, but am about to head to Missouri for a duck hunting trip. I will be out of internet range and what not until next Monday at which point I will do your post justice.
__________________
I like to think, that before that Navy SEAL double tapped bin Laden in the head, he kicked him, so that we could truly say we put a boot in his ass. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Now personally I find that to be hilarious considering the debate. But that's just me.
|
|
|