imfdb.org  

Go Back   imfdb.org > The Forum > Off Topic

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 01-09-2014, 08:52 AM
funkychinaman's Avatar
funkychinaman funkychinaman is offline
IMFDB & Forum Admin
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Bucks County, PA
Posts: 2,516
Default

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!"
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 01-09-2014, 12:43 PM
commando552 commando552 is offline
IMFDB Admin
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: England
Posts: 513
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MoviePropMaster2008 View Post
I still opine that he could have avoided the explosion of pent up resentment and frustration of people 'pushed to the edge' by at least acknowledging the untrustworthiness of the other side. To promote something and APPEAR blissfully ignorant of the malicious intent of the opposing side** does push people's buttons.
To be honest, I doubt saying this would have had any difference on the actual outcome. It may have placated the rational reader, but the irrational would have had exactly the same reaction, and these will always be the loudest most outspoken group who get the most attention. I agree with the sentiment of what Metcalf was trying to say, but I don't think he should ever have expected to write something like that (even if 100% true) in the current climate and not expect this sort of reaction.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 01-09-2014, 05:05 PM
SPEMack618 SPEMack618 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Georgia
Posts: 742
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 01-09-2014, 05:45 PM
commando552 commando552 is offline
IMFDB Admin
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: England
Posts: 513
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SPEMack618 View Post
I can't hear the phrase reasonable regulation and not think of England, Australia, and Chicago.
So does that mean that you think guns should be totally unregulated in the US, with anybody being able to buy and openly carry machine guns and grenade launchers? If not, then you are already accepting that there does need to be some form of "reasonable" regulation, the question is just where this line is drawn.

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.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 01-09-2014, 06:09 PM
SPEMack618 SPEMack618 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Georgia
Posts: 742
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 01-09-2014, 07:01 PM
Yournamehere Yournamehere is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 912
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 01-13-2014, 02:27 AM
MT2008's Avatar
MT2008 MT2008 is offline
IMFDB & Forum Admin
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 2,500
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MoviePropMaster2008 View Post
But I'm trying to point out that I understand where the extreme frustration (and silly actions like threats) come from. Everyone has their breaking point. I don't have to agree with them, but I can recognize what pushed them to that point. What I wonder is, does anyone else?
This mentality is still way too similar to the Muslim extremism example I mentioned earlier. You know how idiot liberal apologists for those assclowns will always say, "I don't support terrorism, but I can understand why the Muslim world is so angry at the U.S."? (And then typically they'll cite the 1953 coup in Iran, U.S. failure to pressure Israel more on talks with the Palestinians, etc.) Don't you think that what are you saying represents the same line of thinking?

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:
Originally Posted by MoviePropMaster2008 View Post
I still opine that he could have avoided the explosion of pent up resentment and frustration of people 'pushed to the edge' by at least acknowledging the untrustworthiness of the other side. To promote something and APPEAR blissfully ignorant of the malicious intent of the opposing side** does push people's buttons.
Dude, throughout my life, I've been "pushed to the edge" by people who pushed my buttons (bosses, teachers, kids at school, etc.) So have you, I am sure, and so has almost everyone else in this world. That still doesn't give any of us a special right to threaten the people who wronged us with death. Rational, sane human beings who are in control of their emotions and believe that the universe is on their side do not act in such a manner.

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.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 01-13-2014, 02:39 AM
MT2008's Avatar
MT2008 MT2008 is offline
IMFDB & Forum Admin
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 2,500
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SPEMack618 View Post
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.
As YourNameHere pointed out, what you are advocating is an America that is based on Hobbesian, not Lockean, principles of republicanism. Which is NOT what the founding fathers intended.

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:
Originally Posted by SPEMack618 View Post
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?
They were, but that is still irrelevant. America and England are not the same. American gun owners in the U.S. have enormous political clout, while U.K. gun owners never did. So long as that difference exists, there is no lesson that American pro-gunners can learn from the British experience. End of story.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SPEMack618 View Post
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.
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.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 01-14-2014, 03:02 PM
SPEMack618 SPEMack618 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Georgia
Posts: 742
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 01-15-2014, 08:47 PM
Jcordell Jcordell is offline
Formerly "Checkman"
IMFDB Admin
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Idaho
Posts: 929
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SPEMack618 View Post
I have several well atriculated rebuttals to your response, but am about to head to Missouri for a duck hunting trip.
Now personally I find that to be hilarious considering the debate. But that's just me.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:04 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.