I was actually surprised a bit off by your response. Most people mean by "minimal gun restrictions" (cf. Obama) Australian style confiscation and buy back.

So I was actually surprised that your minimalism, though I may not necessarily agree, was fairly minimal.

Voting and free speech don't kill people so easily.

I really want someone to prove a gun's utility in a self-defense situation. I never hear of stories like that. Must be the left-wing media.

It might be that when someone has a gun, the threat to others is enough not to make it a newsworthy story.

Most people who own a gun for "protection" are pussies who could never fire at another human trying to kill them.

Then why do you want to take their guns away if most are doing no harm and are in fact [gendered insult that I dare not repeat #WarOnWomen]?

Darren Wilson.

Because they obviously don't need them. And if it makes it so the crazy people don't get them, it's worth it.

The speed limit should be changed to 5 mph everywhere, it would save a lot of lives.

Oh, and disarm everyone especially the police and army. Take away the sharp knives too.

YOU NEED A LICENSE TO DRIVE. AND GET IT TAKEN AWAY IF YOU FAIL AT DRIVING.

That doesn't stop people from from crashing because they are driving at 35mph rather than 5mph. Anyway, you're not calling for a licence to use a gun. Go ahead, do that, why not?

Because you fucking gun nuts refuse to do something even as simple as that. Every car has to be registered and licensed and insured. Will we get gun nuts to agree to anything close to that? FUCK NO.

Take them all away. Because fuck all of you.

I have no desire to get a gun. I just think that gun control tries to enforce a solution rather than deal with the real and unavoidable social issues. Compare Venezula to the US or 'black vs. white' incarceration rates. What's this really about?

But at least you're honest about politics: "Because fuck all of you."

I want to hear that in a state of the union address. Or press conference/interview/debate. I'd be about time.

What would a federal gun registry (I assume that is what you are talking aboit in your fake rage) do to prevent violent people from using a gun to kill someone?


There is no national drivers license and insurance requirements are on the state level for cars. Should everyone be required to have a license to speak? If not, why not? If we required gun insurance, that would seem to me to create a moral hazard prolem and possibly increase reckless behavior from gun owners.

I wonder if there is a Freudian reason for your wanting to ban guns and your fake posturing.

Because people have no equally practical option other than to speak? We evolved and were born to develop the ability to speak in part to meet our basic needs. Also knowing how to speak safely doesn't require any special or unique skills that wouldn't be applicable anyway without speaking.

Also, when comparing guns to cars, a driver’s license doesn't require proof that you won't crash your car intentionally, just that you are capable of driving safely (assuming you didn't crash intentionally in the past).

The reason though I wouldn't trust a federal gun registry is that the issue is so politicized that I would worry about it being used fairly.

I was talking about the amendment before the second amendment. Nothing to do about speech and how it physically occurs. As a human, I am aware that we are able to communicate through speech.

So...The reason you shouldn't require a license to speak is: the first amendment? And that doesn't need to be there for any reason (sorry, didn't realize that was a rhetorical question)? Like the second amendment is there and doesn't need to be there for any reason? Suit yourself.

How about this: I'll declare drugs, or whatever I want, legal and do what I want on my own time. You do what you do, I do what I do; what difference does it make, from your perspective, what anyone else thinks if they can't do anything about it?

Are you this abstruse in real life?

First Amendment is a right under our Constitution. So is Second. I think you should not be required to have a license for either. I feel you should be able to do all the drugs you want but see no affirmative right in the Constitution.

If it's necessary. Why should I compromise what I'm trying to say because someone doesn't want to think about what I'm saying? Do you really need me to explain the point I was getting at in the first paragraph?



I'll repeat and elaborate, if someone declares it their right to do all the drugs they want, why isn't that as valid (or more valid to them perhaps) as the constitution? Is it a right because people declare it to be a right, or regardless of whether they do? If it is something like an 'inalienable right', than it doesn't matter whether it is written in the constitution, or any other document. It is grounded in something else. Do you think 'free speech' was an 'inalienable right' before 1776, or only because they made it so?

So again, are they just words on paper that people follow (no better or worse than any other/arbitrary)? Or is it grounded on some reality beyond that? Are we arguing about what exactly is printed on a piece of paper (because I think that is pretty much settled), or about why laws/rules should be the way they are? Because you sound to me like theists who argue for their morality by basically saying: 'god made it that way, and that's it'.

I am talking about exactly what is printed on paper. Not whatever point you are making about whether law be found in natural law, the whim of the people at that time, positivism, utilitarianism, Rawslian theories, or some other source, no source, or simply meaningless.

If someone declared that they should have a right to do all the drugs they want, you would get no pushback from me. I would state the Constitution is silent on the issue but I would make no claim otherwise as to why it should be banned.

Ok, what's printed on paper. That's not the conversation I'm interested in having, so I guess, bye.

I believe Caius is taking the Constitution a little too seriously. It's a fucking document. That can and has been changed.

Indeed, it has provisions for how it is to be changed. I agree.

I don't agree with your flippant attitude about it but that is your schtick, so I get it.

I tend to believe that right and wrong do exist, a type of natural rights argument, but I recognize that they are enforced only by the power of a gun (government) made up of a broad range of people who mostly share those values and prevent a Hobbesian state of nature.

That is not to say that any law the public enacts or is dictated is moral.

Well, I don't remember ever knowing of anyone who actually argued might always makes right.

Societies need to enforce their interests. If they don't others won't. But their goals evolve and are shaped by things more universal. It's no surprise then that they seem to always claim to represent a higher power, truth, or cause.

I might have once called it right and wrong, but the more I think about it the more apparent it is that there is not a line between the two. There are principles, but sometimes the world doesn't allow the opportunity for them to be expressed the right way. What's called wrong is rather incomplete, faulty, contradictory, or failed.