Shooting at Umpqua Community College: 10 dead

[Denny Crane]

Military overthrowing the government - sure. That's a different and much worse scenario though, because then you almost surely don't have Denny's fantasy of most of the military defecting to the citizens. And in that scenario, the military is free to use it's overwhelming force against the population (since it is calling the shots, and since shooting is what it knows how to do).

200 years? Do you really think your gun is going to be relevant in a war 200 years from now?

barfo

barfo,

I have no vision of any armed conflict between the citizens and the government. You're pulling that crap out of your ass.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

Military overthrowing the government - sure. That's a different and much worse scenario though, because then you almost surely don't have Denny's fantasy of most of the military defecting to the citizens. And in that scenario, the military is free to use it's overwhelming force against the population (since it is calling the shots, and since shooting is what it knows how to do).

200 years? Do you really think your gun is going to be relevant in a war 200 years from now?

barfo

Ray Guns!

 

[Denny Crane]

Look at who lobbies for harsher drug laws. They aren't doing it for "the greater good".

Unintended consequences.

 

[barfo]

barfo,

I have no vision of any armed conflict between the citizens and the government. You're pulling that crap out of your ass.

You sure about that?

Sheer numbers. 2.5M military vs. 350M+ enemies.

I bet most of the military would desert.

barfo

 

[riverman]

Ray Guns!

This has come in so handy at times like these

 

[3RA1N1AC]

Military overthrowing the government - sure. That's a different and much worse scenario though, because then you almost surely don't have Denny's fantasy of most of the military defecting to the citizens. And in that scenario, the military is free to use it's overwhelming force against the population (since it is calling the shots, and since shooting is what it knows how to do).

200 years? Do you really think your gun is going to be relevant in a war 200 years from now?

barfo

If this military is still made up of Americans, asking them to bomb their mothers house might not work that great. Who knows.

We dont see eye to eye on this, and thats fine, but it's common sense. As a dictator, would you rather the people be armed, or unarmed?

As far as 200 years from now goes...there will be different guns 200 years from now I assume. With an intact right to bear them (hopefully).

 

[Denny Crane]

You sure about that?



barfo

I'm not calling for an armed overthrow of the government.

I was asked what it would look like IF the government came to confiscate everyone's guns. Big IF.


It would be bloody violent. There are 100M+ gun owners and I don't think they're going to give up their guns without a fight.

100M+ is 50x the size of the military. The bigger guns haven't been effective against Iraq, about the size of California. Wasn't effective against Afghanistan. Wasn't effective against Vietnam. I don't see why anyone would think that a 2.7M military, minus those who'd defect to join the PEOPLE's side, would have more success on US soil against US citizens.

It would be your kind that would force that kind of violence on us by trying to confiscate all the guns. You've given everyone reason to expect it will happen, it's just a matter of time. You're pathetic protests to the contrary are noted and dismissed.

 

[Denny Crane]

If this military is still made up of Americans, asking them to bomb their mothers house might not work that great. Who knows.

We dont see eye to eye on this, and thats fine, but it's common sense. As a dictator, would you rather the people be armed, or unarmed?

As far as 200 years from now goes...there will be different guns 200 years from now I assume. With an intact right to bear them (hopefully).

LOL

barfo actually is expecting the military to bomb their mothers.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

LOL

barfo actually is expecting the military to bomb their mothers.

You should wait to LOL until we meet Barfo's mother.

 

[Denny Crane]

You should wait to LOL until we meet Barfo's mother.

He says I have this "fantasy" that the military won't bomb their mothers.

 

[riverman]

You should wait to LOL until we meet Barfo's mother.

I have, she's expendable

 

[RR7]

I'm not calling for an armed overthrow of the government.

I was asked what it would look like IF the government came to confiscate everyone's guns. Big IF.


It would be bloody violent. There are 100M+ gun owners and I don't think they're going to give up their guns without a fight.

100M+ is 50x the size of the military. The bigger guns haven't been effective against Iraq, about the size of California. Wasn't effective against Afghanistan. Wasn't effective against Vietnam. I don't see why anyone would think that a 2.7M military, minus those who'd defect to join the PEOPLE's side, would have more success on US soil against US citizens.

It would be your kind that would force that kind of violence on us by trying to confiscate all the guns. You've given everyone reason to expect it will happen, it's just a matter of time. You're pathetic protests to the contrary are noted and dismissed.

You just don't get it.

 

[julius]

Can we go back to making fun of Taylor Danforth, please?

 

[Denny Crane]

You just don't get it.

What's to get?

I have no interest in taking away NateBishop's or Further's guns.

And I haven't seen any evidence that the government can control smaller populations than ours, where the military isn't recruited from that population.

 

[barfo]

If this military is still made up of Americans, asking them to bomb their mothers house might not work that great. Who knows.

Who knows indeed. I'm pretty sure that it isn't the case that every military coup has failed due to desertion.

We dont see eye to eye on this, and thats fine, but it's common sense. As a dictator, would you rather the people be armed, or unarmed?

Definitely, unarmed. But, that might not be the most relevant question.

As far as 200 years from now goes...there will be different guns 200 years from now I assume. With an intact right to bear them (hopefully).

Maybe. I suspect that the definition of 'arms' will have to be expanded greatly if the citizens are going to be prepared for war 200 years from now.

barfo

 

[barfo]

I'm not calling for an armed overthrow of the government.

I was asked what it would look like IF the government came to confiscate everyone's guns. Big IF.

Yes, it is a huge if. But it's the justification for people having guns, because the government might someday come to take them away.

We gotta have guns because someday someone might try to take them from us...

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

Yes, it is a huge if. But it's the justification for people having guns, because the government might someday come to take them away.

We gotta have guns because someday someone might try to take them from us...

barfo

You just don't get it.

Does that work?

 

[Denny Crane]

Yes, it is a huge if. But it's the justification for people having guns, because the government might someday come to take them away.

We gotta have guns because someday someone might try to take them from us...

barfo

No, barfo, that's not the justification.

The justification is that we're supposed to be a FREE people. Gun ownership rights is part of what being a FREE people means.

 

[barfo]

You just don't get it.

Does that work?

Nope. Doesn't work, because I understand your arguments, I just disagree with them.

barfo

 

[SlyPokerDog]

Can we go back to making fun of Taylor Danforth, please?

Or talking about Barfo's mother.

 

[barfo]

No, barfo, that's not the justification.

The justification is that we're supposed to be a FREE people. Gun ownership rights is part of what being a FREE people means.

That's hilarious and just a little pathetic. You can't be free (er, sorry, FREE) without owning a gun?

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

That's hilarious and just a little pathetic. You can't be free (er, sorry, FREE) without owning a gun?

barfo

How many rights do you need to erode before you're not free?

Hilarious indeed.

 

[julius]

How many rights do you need to erode before you're not free?

Hilarious indeed.

Hilarious that this freedom (guns) was more important at the time of it's creation than the rights of black people, women or native Americans rights (er, those fake Americans, Indians).

 

[Denny Crane]

Hilarious that his freedom (guns) was more important at the time of it's creation than the rights of black people, women or native Americans rights (er, those fake Americans, Indians).

Non sequitur.

But thanks anyway.

 

[theprunetang]

Keep talking about politics. I spent my day texting friends and family. I wanted to make sure they were okay. I had a friend that died today, and I am crying while I write this. But please keep on arguing about shit. ......

 

[Denny Crane]

Keep talking about politics. I spent my day texting friends and family. I wanted to make sure they were okay. I had a friend that died today, and I am crying while I write this. But please keep on arguing about shit. ......

Sorry for your loss. It is unfortunate that these things become politicized, but they do.

 

[barfo]

How many rights do you need to erode before you're not free?

That's a reasonable question. I think there are different degrees of freedom. I'm not free to kill a bunch of kids right now (unless I have enough guns) but I don't consider that a serious constraint on my freedom because I don't want to kill a bunch of kids. I can't fly by flapping my arms (or guns... or gums) and I wish I could, that would be a greater freedom than I have right now. I don't think there is a bright line, but if there is I'm pretty sure that the gain or loss of gun ownership isn't that bright line, though, unless guns are what you live for.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

That's a reasonable question. I think there are different degrees of freedom. I'm not free to kill a bunch of kids right now (unless I have enough guns) but I don't consider that a serious constraint on my freedom because I don't want to kill a bunch of kids. I can't fly by flapping my arms (or guns... or gums) and I wish I could, that would be a greater freedom than I have right now. I don't think there is a bright line, but if there is I'm pretty sure that the gain or loss of gun ownership isn't that bright line, though, unless guns are what you live for.

barfo

Freedom has consequences. I'd rather live with those than without freedom in the first place.

People can (and sadly do) abuse our freedoms by setting fires or randomly deciding to shoot up a peaceful place.

Or yelling (Go Blazers!), which is fine, but not "Fire!" in a crowded theater. From my perspective, you want to keep people from yelling "Fire!" by cutting out their vocal cords.

Just as long as it's not YOUR vocal cords, that is.

 

[barfo]

It is unfortunate that these things become politicized, but they do.

It would certainly be better to just pretend there is no possible solution and that we just have to live with this type of violence, rather than debate the alternatives.

barfo

 

[barfo]

Keep talking about politics. I spent my day texting friends and family. I wanted to make sure they were okay. I had a friend that died today, and I am crying while I write this. But please keep on arguing about shit. ......

Sorry.

barfo