100+ dead in France

Fogdog · Jul 18, 2016

cannabineer said:
They did have weapons parity with the Gov't soldiers. What they did not have was tactical and logistic parity. More than the gun makes a soldier.

http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/13786-the-founding-fathers-vs-the-gun-nuts
Sorry, gun nuts, you’re on the wrong side of our Founding Fathers.

For example, in a tirade against CNN’s Piers Morgan, Alex Jones argued, “The Second Amendment isn’t there for duck hunting. It’s there to protect us from tyrannical government.”

It’s an argument that’s often echoed by gun nuts – as though their fully-loaded AR-15 with 100-bullet drum will keep them safe from Predator drones and cruise missiles. If indeed this is the true intent of the 2nd Amendment, protection from the government, then here’s the newsflash: you guys are woefully outgunned. And the 2nd Amendment would have allowed you to own a cannon and a warship, so America today would look more like Somalia today with well-armed warlords running their own little fiefdoms in defiance of the federal government.

Just ask the ancestors of those who participated in the Whiskey Rebellion. In 1794, armed Americans took up guns against what they viewed as a tyrannical George Washington administration imposing taxes on whiskey. President Washington called up 13,000 militia men, and personally led the troops to squash the rebellion of armed citizens in Bedford, Pennsylvania. No Army. No right to have guns to overthrow the oppressive US government.

But, more than 200 years later, gun nuts like Alex Jones somehow believe the 2nd Amendment was created for, not against, those American who committed treason and took part in the Whiskey Rebellion. And they’re threatening another rebellion should the government ban the sale of assault weapons and high-capacity magazines.

So, you guys keep talking to each other for confirmation bias. But you are wrong. The second amendment had nothing to do with protecting 'mericans from the government. It was about the defense of the country by a militia from all enemies foreign and domestic. The militia called up and led by Gen. Washington put down a domestic enemy. Those farmers didn't have a chance. Oh, and GW was the first president to be called a tyrant. But to avoid future tyrants, he set the precedent of two terms as a limit that was observed up until the 1930's. Isn't that an ironic little factoid.

Rambo is a great and fun movie. Don't take it seriously though.

abandonconflict · Jul 18, 2016

cannabineer said:
I never got an associate's degree.

If you had, maybe you could conduct research on human behavior...

testiclees · Jul 18, 2016

cannabineer said:
I never got an associate's degree.

You are apparently not qualified to talk about reason. You are more the meme and insult warrior sort. And unlike the other no-reason-was-harmed-in -making-this-post fellow, you aren't even cute.

Lout, your words terrify us with their fierce stupidity and queenish campyness.

Dull, flaccid, dumb as fuck, entirely disposble not insult but discerning characterization.

UncleBuck · Jul 18, 2016

cannabineer said:
I don't control who sends me Likes.

if he ever puts a like on any post i make, i am going to seriously reconsider having that opinion.

cannabineer said:
I agree with each bullet (lol) point.

cannabineer said:
As for the peashooter, you have captured why I like the idea of weapons parity with the government.

oh that is just the most horrible idea i have ever heard.

cannabineer said:
ceterum censeo Admitting that humans instinctively schematize does not equal xenophobia. Your silence on my previous post to you worries me in a similar and opposite manner. If you see me engage in egregious excursions from reason, call me on those.

i have to pick and choose.

there is evidence that in/out groups are innate. you did say in a previous post (later re-quoted by fogdog) something about genetics and tribalist xenophobia. maybe you were just using the word xenophobia since it was foisted upon you, i'm not very concerned. i've never seen anything ugly from you.

cannabineer · Jul 18, 2016

UncleBuck said:
if he ever puts a like on any post i make, i am going to seriously reconsider having that opinion.

oh that is just the most horrible idea i have ever heard.

i have to pick and choose.

there is evidence that in/out groups are innate. you did say in a previous post (later re-quoted by fogdog) something about genetics and tribalist xenophobia. maybe you were just using the word xenophobia since it was foisted upon you, i'm not very concerned. i've never seen anything ugly from you.

The word xenophobia was not introduced by me. That was abandonconflict distorting what i said to make it hateful.I do believe that humans have a tribal default. Much of the chore of modern acculturation/socialization is to teach our young to recognize and control that impulse. Imo.

I am interested to hear why you believe that is "the most horrible idea". I will consider your ideas seriously.

cannabineer · Jul 18, 2016

Fogdog said:
http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/13786-the-founding-fathers-vs-the-gun-nuts
Sorry, gun nuts, you’re on the wrong side of our Founding Fathers.

For example, in a tirade against CNN’s Piers Morgan, Alex Jones argued, “The Second Amendment isn’t there for duck hunting. It’s there to protect us from tyrannical government.”

It’s an argument that’s often echoed by gun nuts – as though their fully-loaded AR-15 with 100-bullet drum will keep them safe from Predator drones and cruise missiles. If indeed this is the true intent of the 2nd Amendment, protection from the government, then here’s the newsflash: you guys are woefully outgunned. And the 2nd Amendment would have allowed you to own a cannon and a warship, so America today would look more like Somalia today with well-armed warlords running their own little fiefdoms in defiance of the federal government.

Just ask the ancestors of those who participated in the Whiskey Rebellion. In 1794, armed Americans took up guns against what they viewed as a tyrannical George Washington administration imposing taxes on whiskey. President Washington called up 13,000 militia men, and personally led the troops to squash the rebellion of armed citizens in Bedford, Pennsylvania. No Army. No right to have guns to overthrow the oppressive US government.

But, more than 200 years later, gun nuts like Alex Jones somehow believe the 2nd Amendment was created for, not against, those American who committed treason and took part in the Whiskey Rebellion. And they’re threatening another rebellion should the government ban the sale of assault weapons and high-capacity magazines.

So, you guys keep talking to each other for confirmation bias. But you are wrong. The second amendment had nothing to do with protecting 'mericans from the government. It was about the defense of the country by a militia from all enemies foreign and domestic. The militia called up and led by Gen. Washington put down a domestic enemy. Those farmers didn't have a chance. Oh, and GW was the first president to be called a tyrant. But to avoid future tyrants, he set the precedent of two terms as a limit that was observed up until the 1930's. Isn't that an ironic little factoid.

Rambo is a great and fun movie. Don't take it seriously though.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truthout

I credit you with consistency. And your own confirmation bias.

UncleBuck · Jul 18, 2016

cannabineer said:
I am interested to hear why you believe that is "the most horrible idea". I will consider your ideas seriously.

i was fairly sure that wouldn't require any explanation.

when some white supremacist retired cop like desert dude snaps, it's bad enough that he has the 13 guns in his confederate flag adorned pickup truck.

i think australia has a very successful model. but most of the deranged right wingers on this site are still waiting for their government to round them up into FEMA camps. only thing i would change about the australia model is to make self defense a valid reason for being able to procure a firearm.

tanks and drones and nuclear arsenals in the hands of citizens? ummmm, no. no explanation required.

abandonconflict · Jul 18, 2016

cannabineer said:
I otoh think that my thoughts on the matter are heavily predicated by my genetics. Yes, I do believe humans are essentially xenophobes of the tribal variety.

You introduced the concept to the discussion implicitly, and I described your remark as xenophobic, you then confirmed with this.

Don't go saying that I simply brought it in.

cannabineer · Jul 18, 2016

UncleBuck said:
i was fairly sure that wouldn't require any explanation.

when some white supremacist retired cop like desert dude snaps, it's bad enough that he has the 13 guns in his confederate flag adorned pickup truck.

i think australia has a very successful model. but most of the deranged right wingers on this site are still waiting for their government to round them up into FEMA camps. only thing i would change about the australia model is to make self defense a valid reason for being able to procure a firearm.

tanks and drones and nuclear arsenals in the hands of citizens? ummmm, no. no explanation required.

I would stipulate that for defense, defensive firearms, such as the eminently concealable 9mm pistol beloved of police and rear-echelon military, be guaranteed available to non-disqualified applicants.

As for having tanks and nukes and drones, an argument can be mounted in favor without necessarily being 100% wingnut. But it degenerates into two soapboxes, one park. "Let's not and say we did."

cannabineer · Jul 18, 2016

abandonconflict said:
You introduced the concept to the discussion implicitly, and I described your remark as xenophobic, you then confirmed with this.

Don't go saying that I simply brought it in.

But you did. You have already reconfirmed your intellectual dishonesty. This attempt at spin control doesn't help your position.

abandonconflict · Jul 18, 2016

cannabineer said:
But you did. You have already reconfirmed your intellectual dishonesty. This attempt at spin control doesn't help your position.

How exactly am I being intellectually dishonest in this? By pointing out that you asked for a citation to research regarding human social behavior but stipulated that research regarding human social behavior be excluded?

You do realize, by definition, research regarding human social behavior, is called SOCIAL ANTHROPOLOGY...

There is no such study that is not social anthropology. Despite your irrational belief that such research lacks evidence and objectivity, words have meanings. Don't make me scan through the thread and show you what you said, just so you can spin it and claim you meant something else.

abandonconflict · Jul 18, 2016

cannabineer said:
please substantiate with something other than Social Anthropology

This is where you demanded a citation which I assume you intended as peer reviewed research. We're discussing human social behavior. Hopefully you can clarify how exactly one conducts research regarding human social behavior without conducting research regarding human social behavior.

cannabineer · Jul 18, 2016

abandonconflict said:
This is where you demanded a citation which I assume you intended as peer reviewed research. We're discussing human social behavior. Hopefully you can clarify how exactly one conducts research regarding human social behavior without conducting research regarding human social behavior.

That is not synonymous with "social anthropology" despite your previous insinuation otherwise. I am not impressed with your intellectual integrity.

Addendum. I also reject your previous post's "by definition" statement. Social anthropology is a subset of studies into human nature, not the other way around.

abandonconflict · Jul 18, 2016

cannabineer said:
Fuck social anthropology right in the ...

cannabineer said:
bring science, not "anthropology"

cannabineer said:
I dismiss no science. I dismiss a pseudoscience that has become the last refuge of Postmodern intellectual scoundrels.

Please continue about how I am dishonest for trying to redefine what Social Anthropology is in a discussion regarding human social behavior and your assertion that guns make societies more civilized. I particularly like the part where you demand a citation but stipulate that it may not include social anthropology research, and then deny making this demand, and then call me dishonest repeatedly.

I never asserted this:

cannabineer said:
I also reject your previous post's "by definition" statement. Social anthropology is a subset of studies into human nature, not the other way around.

I asserted that research regarding human social behavior is social anthropology by definition. One can not conduct research regarding human social behavior without conducting research regarding human social behavior.

abandonconflict said:
You do realize, by definition, research regarding human social behavior, is called SOCIAL ANTHROPOLOGY...

Spinning and being intellectually dishonest, you repeatedly assert that I am doing these, how ironic.

see4 · Jul 19, 2016

cannabineer said:
Can you provide me with numbers for that uptick? I don't have access to sources whose bias I know and can correct for

cannabineer said:
This is where you and I seem to intractably disagree. Allow me another way in for a moment: if not to oppose a rogue Government, what use would such an amendment have? Look at Britain, where guns were progressively legislated out with "use exemptions" for hunting and marksmanship. A Second Amendment would be neither apt nor necessary in such a climate or place.

If you read a bit about the history of the Second, I wonder how durable your "most assured" conclusion will remain. I believe that the right to oppose the Gov't is the heart of that amendment. There is no other reason for it that I can discern. It was written by people with immediate experience in throwing off an unwanted Government. I contend they wanted to secure that capacity for their descendants and safeguard it from nascent tyrants.

And that is why I believe Sotomayor is so keen on gutting it. She wants her security from uppity citizens.

As UB pointed out, the 2nd Amendment was not meant specifically for defending against a tyrannical government. Of which by the way, you will have a very hard time convincing me we are so ruled. By simply dismissing all other interpretations, you've left this discussion about why the 2nd Amendment exists and why we should or should not all have a "God given" right to bear arms. Straying from the point you've pivoted your focus more on establishing our current form of government is tyrannical and that one Associate Justice is working tirelessly day and night to make that happen, under our blind innocent noses.

I reject that notion completely. I would have also liked to stay on topic. I'd like to discuss more, but I've got meetings to attend today. I may stop in and try to debate a little, but it may resort to one liners or swaths of thought. Like my use of swath? lol

abandonconflict · Jul 19, 2016

Armed Black Protesters Cause Cleveland Police To Call For “Temporary Suspension of Second Amendment”
July 17, 2016

http://countercurrentnews.com/2016/07/rnc-black-open-carry-protesters/

cannabineer · Jul 19, 2016

see4 said:
View attachment 3736106

As UB pointed out, the 2nd Amendment was not meant specifically for defending against a tyrannical government. Of which by the way, you will have a very hard time convincing me we are so ruled. By simply dismissing all other interpretations, you've left this discussion about why the 2nd Amendment exists and why we should or should not all have a "God given" right to bear arms. Straying from the point you've pivoted your focus more on establishing our current form of government is tyrannical and that one Associate Justice is working tirelessly day and night to make that happen, under our blind innocent noses.

I reject that notion completely. I would have also liked to stay on topic. I'd like to discuss more, but I've got meetings to attend today. I may stop in and try to debate a little, but it may resort to one liners or swaths of thought. Like my use of swath? lol

Wow. A "fuck you" response to my request for a source, and systematic distortion of what I said.

It is fine if we disagree on whether or not the political process in this nation is salvageable. But for you to impute to me stuff I didn't say is such an easy way to win an argument I doubt it is entirely sporting.

I do stipulate that the political process in the USA is a dead skin on the frame of something less public and much less benign.

Instead of simply saying "I disagree" and providing actual support for your argument, you did the above. I think we are done. I hope your meetings went well. With your contempt for reading comprehension, I can't presume they did.

Since we won't agree on basic premises, what possible fruitful discussion did you expect? How were you going to make your points while refusing mine? It is asymmetric.

As for UB, you might note that he added reasons to the central one and did not deny or invalidate it. The idea that "our popguns won't have any effect on our military" is false on the face of it. Place US soldiers up against desperate citizens with Remingtons and give the order to fire. What do you suppose might happen?

My gun may be weaker than Private Doe's, but the moral weight of dying in defense of my (land, rights,family) against a soldier of the Gov't will be quite corrosive to the Gov't's cause.

Prove that Sotomayor isn't doing just what I said, not your subtly demonized version. I dare you.

I am diffident that you will. With the above post you have joined abandonconflict in intellectually dishonest debate tactics.

You also gave those transparent nincompoops (the extent of my name-calling on this forum) Balls and Pooch the nod for excoriating my choice of words. The Fuck You is strong in this one, Luke. Have a really great day, see4.

see4 · Jul 19, 2016

cannabineer said:
Wow. A "fuck you" response to my request for a source, and systematic distortion of what I said.

It is fine if we disagree on whether or not the political process in this nation is salvageable. But for you to impute to me stuff I didn't say is such an easy way to win an argument I doubt it is entirely sporting.

I do stipulate that the political process in the USA is a dead skin on the frame of something less public and much less benign.

Instead of simply saying "I disagree" and providing actual support for your argument, you did the above. I think we are done. I hope your meetings went well. With your contempt for reading comprehension, I can't presume they did.

Since we won't agree on basic premises, what possible fruitful discussion did you expect? How were you going to make your points while refusing mine? It is asymmetric.

As for UB, you might note that he added reasons to the central one and did not deny or invalidate it. The idea that "our popguns won't have any effect on our military" is false on the face of it. Place US soldiers up against desperate citizens with Remingtons and give the order to fire. What do you suppose might happen?

My gun may be weaker than Private Doe's, but the moral weight of dying in defense of my (land, rights,family) against a soldier of the Gov't will be quite corrosive to the Gov't's cause.

Prove that Sotomayor isn't doing just what I said, not your subtly demonized version. I dare you.

I am diffident that you will. With the above post you have joined abandonconflict in intellectually dishonest debate tactics.

You also gave those transparent nincompoops (the extent of my name-calling on this forum) Balls and Pooch the nod for excoriating my choice of words. The Fuck You is strong in this one, Luke. Have a really great day, see4.

I haven't read this fully, when I'm not busy I will read it and respond in full.

However, reading the first line, you definitely misinterpreted this morning's comment. I was in a rush, I've been in meetings all day, I tried to quickly respond without leaving anything un-responded to.

I'm not saying fuck you, sorry it came off that way.

cannabineer · Jul 19, 2016

see4 said:
I haven't read this fully, when I'm not busy I will read it and respond in full.

However, reading the first line, you definitely misinterpreted this morning's comment. I was in a rush, I've been in meetings all day, I tried to quickly respond without leaving anything un-responded to.

I'm not saying fuck you, sorry it came off that way.

If this is true, why did you misrepresent what I said and make it sound like a more familiar (and thus easily debunked) extremist argument? Like when you shoehorned "God-given" into my e-mouth, insinuating that I am to be dismissed as a typical conservative. These are possibly reading comprehension issues, but you are clearly intelligent, so I presume hostility when I see that useless image combined with multiple distortions of what I presented.

For you and me to return to a fruitful discussion, I believe we need to first establish what we agree on, then go from there. I think the discussion of "is our government even equipped for honesty?" to be entirely germane. If it isn't corrupt, the best path is within the system as you have described. But I believe otherwise, and if my beliefs hold any verity, working within the system is stupid, a waste and an act of willing victimhood.

I really do believe that due process in this nation is a hollow shell concealing utterly amoral corporatocrats who cynically use the democratic process while gutting its effectiveness and value.

So to seek gun legislation that doesn't "flow downhill" to Sotomayor and other architects of prohibition, I imagine navigating our broken legislative process will be not so successful. Indeed I believe that Sotomayor's awesome rejection of a plank of the Bill of Rights demands intense scrutiny by anyone who hasn't decided that that scrutiny is not disloyal.

These are things you and I need to square ... without my using loaded terms and without you rephrasing what I said to make it sound worse, in order for us to reach a possible consensus. From there we can explore the purpose of guaranteeing the right to keep and bear (and make and load and sell and buy and bequeath mand operate and carry) arms in the central legal document of our nation.

see4 · Jul 19, 2016

cannabineer said:
If this is true, why did you misrepresent what I said and make it sound like a more familiar (and thus easily debunked) extremist argument? Like when you shoehorned "God-given" into my e-mouth, insinuating that I am to be dismissed as a typical conservative. These are possibly reading comprehension issues, but you are clearly intelligent, so I presume hostility when I see that useless image combined with multiple distortions of what I presented.

I merely rewrote my interpretation of your thoughts. If I was off base in my assumptions maybe your approach could have been more tame? I'm not usually one to attack people like you, cb. You'll know when I'm doing that. - That being said, I interpreted your position as "extreme" as you were the one to denote that intention. -- I wasn't attempting to be snooty, I apologize for coming off that way. Let's let that one go, and move forward.

cannabineer said:
For you and me to return to a fruitful discussion, I believe we need to first establish what we agree on, then go from there. I think the discussion of "is our government even equipped for honesty?" to be entirely germane. If it isn't corrupt, the best path is within the system as you have described. But I believe otherwise, and if my beliefs hold any verity, working within the system is stupid, a waste and an act of willing victimhood.

Is it corrupt? Or is it rather dysfunctional and requires attention? I'd argue dysfunctional. Have you seen or lived under a corrupt government? I have for a couple years, I am far better off here in the United States, even with all its dysfunction.

cannabineer said:
I really do believe that due process in this nation is a hollow shell concealing utterly amoral corporatocrats who cynically use the democratic process while gutting its effectiveness and value.

I believe due process works most of the time. But again, there are times the judicial system is dysfunctional.

cannabineer said:
So to seek gun legislation that doesn't "flow downhill" to Sotomayor and other architects of prohibition, I imagine navigating our broken legislative process will be not so successful. Indeed I believe that Sotomayor's awesome rejection of a plank of the Bill of Rights demands intense scrutiny by anyone who hasn't decided that that scrutiny is not disloyal.

So you're taking to "slippery slope" argument? My position is close to yours on this. I believe certain politicians and political hack Judges are taking a far extreme approach to gun rights. And I don't agree with them, which is namely why I won't be voting for Hillary this election, I'll write in Bernie. -- That point aside, I do feel there is a common sense approach to gun legislation and oversight, and it certainly ain't, "fuck it, let everyone have a gun, at least i know im a better shot".

cannabineer said:
These are things you and I need to square ... without my using loaded terms and without you rephrasing what I said to make it sound worse, in order for us to reach a possible consensus. From there we can explore the purpose of guaranteeing the right to keep and bear (and make and load and sell and buy and bequeath mand operate and carry) arms in the central legal document of our nation.

I hope I've squared up as best I could in the few minutes I have at the moment. Be back soon.

100+ dead in France

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Ursus marijanus

Ursus marijanus

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Ursus marijanus

Ursus marijanus

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Ursus marijanus

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Ursus marijanus

Well-Known Member

Ursus marijanus

Well-Known Member