Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Nadaka]

Yea, a 30 or 40 round magazine can be 3d printed or put together from some sheet metal and a few simple tools.

[SalmonGod]

Even when one of those things is a suggestion to restrict access of items that enable murder and the other is a suggestion to monitor communications (which do not commonly enable murder)?

Objection.  Mass surveillance and breach of privacy is a means of oppression, which indirectly results in death.  It is a far more effective disarming than any sort of gun ban.  It makes it impossible for people to organize without interference or consequences.  I'm not even talking about violent organization.  I'm talking things like involvement in a political organization with goals counter to establishment interests = marked for harassment at every possible opportunity (like airports) and monitored diligently for any excuse to take legal action on even the flimsiest basis.  Thus it's made much easier for governments, and the elite class that owns them, to wreak economic and environmental devastation that harms everybody without meaningful opposition.

Here's something interesting...

Hillary Clinton asks Bindi Irwin to write an essay on conservation to publish in support of her endangered species initiative.  Hillary edits it all to hell until it says exactly what she wants.  Bindi refuses to allow her to publish it.  I think she's going to grow up to be an impressive person.

[Helgoland]

Let's not forget that this legislation is primarily directed at people running amok. Those guys aren't hardened criminals; they're basically normal people who went a little bit crazy. Denying them the opportunity to do that much damage goes hand in hand with denying normal people the opportunity to obtain weapons with which they could do that much damage.
Claiming that banning high-capacity magazines will not stop bank robberies or gang warfare and is therefore useless is plain BS and, to be honest, a pretty bad strawman argument.

[scriver]

Even when one of those things is a suggestion to restrict access of items that enable murder and the other is a suggestion to monitor communications (which do not commonly enable murder)?

Objection.  Mass surveillance and breach of privacy is a means of oppression, which indirectly results in death.

This is the most ridiculous logic I have ever seen you use, Salmon. No, they're still not analogous.

[SalmonGod]

Wasn't commenting on the analogy, only the claim that monitoring communications doesn't enable murder.  If not for widespread, intrusive surveillance, the powers that be wouldn't get away with nearly so much.  It allows them to shut down opposition to their activities before it can even hope to matter.

Basically what I already said here

I think it's interesting how many people think any conflict against the government or any other powerful establishment these days will take the form of some sort of guerrilla warfare.  Times have changed.  The battlefield is information, not guns.  People are discredited, villified, and then locked away or killed after it's certain that not enough of the population will care about them to matter.  There will be no obvious moment when a line is crossed and everyone knows it's time to spring into action.  There will be a moment when you look back and see a vast but scattered array over years of people shut down by legal attacks launched over-zealously on the basis of petty technicalities, where the disproportionate application of the law (expanded to make any person alive eligible for identification as a criminal as soon as the overwhelming surveillance state recognizes them as an active dissident) was for the handful of people paying serious attention quite obviously motivated by challenges to legitimacy and ideology, and you will realize that no real conflict could ever possibly hope to begin under these circumstances.

Edit:  And actually, on reviewing the analogy, I find it quite solid

and I think that arguments along the lines of, "If you're not planning to do anything illegal, you can't possibly need one of these guns, so you've got nothing to lose through this kind of law," are disturbingly similar to, "If you're not planning to do anything illegal, you haven't got anything to hide, so you've got nothing to lose from surveillance of your Internet activities."

These are both arguments for the disarming of a populace.  Both operate under the excuse of preventing crime.  There may be more elements to both issues besides this, but that has no bearing on whether or not this analogy can operate on its own.  But anyway... the analogy still isn't my concern so much as the belief that surveillance isn't dangerous.

[misko27]

Salmon appears to be strongly against any form of, how shall I phrase this in a neutral manner, what he percieves as governmental interference.
 
That's totally vague, but let's continue. The main reason to me the argument is not valid is that preventing people from having a object used solely for killing, or, gamesmanship, is different from observing, and possibly taking action due to results thereof, the innane and innocent possesions of a civilian, that the government finds during this, surveillance. That the intention is crime prevention is almost completely and uttery irrelvant, as intentions mean absoultely nothing. What is important, is what happens. Surveillance of a civialian and banning a dangerous object are totally unrelated.
 
Now, that is a logical reasoning. My emotional reasons say Salmon just went absolutely crackers and is feeding his paranoiad delusions with insane arguments, but emotions aren't facts,  so we'll continue regardless. Also, I just wrote that to see who's paying attention. I do believe Salmon is perhaps exaggereating the power of the government a tad though, and the strong feeling on the one is influencing this issue.

[Leafsnail]

Wasn't commenting on the analogy, only the claim that monitoring communications doesn't enable murder.

You misunderstand.  What I meant is that communications don't enable murder while guns do.

[SalmonGod]

I do believe Salmon is perhaps exaggereating the power of the government a tad though, and the strong feeling on the one is influencing this issue.

Except the government isn't just the government.  It's the military/industrial complex almost completely unified with multi-national corporations, and perhaps you haven't been paying attention to the way whistleblowers, activists, or movements like Occupy are treated.  The odds against any challenge to the interests of entrenched powers (who are very much responsible for incredible amounts of death by poverty or environmental destruction) are unimaginable, and it's because organization is pre-emptively disrupted and key figures identified and ensnared, made possible by overwhelming surveillance.

[mainiac]

All of this is good reasons for unfettered speech.  But how does any of it have bearing on gun magazine size?

[SalmonGod]

It doesn't.  It's a tangent.  Which is pretty normal and accepted for B12, right?  The gun debate has been done to death about a million times anyway.

[Leafsnail]

It's not really a tangent considering it's wholly irrelevant to the challenge I was giving the analogy.

[SalmonGod]

Except you said that surveillance doesn't enable murder, and I was challenging that.

[RedKing]

All of this is good reasons for unfettered speech.  But how does any of it have bearing on gun magazine size?

Because in the eyes of the NRA, bullets = speech? *shrug*

Limiting magazine size is limiting the right to free expression, namely self-expression by shooting the fuck out of some shit.

[mainiac]

If bullets were speech the supreme court would legislate from the bench so hard that we'd have no murder whatsoever within 5 years.  Yes, they'd end murder from non-guns too just to be on the safe side.

[Nadaka]

Wasn't commenting on the analogy, only the claim that monitoring communications doesn't enable murder.

You misunderstand.  What I meant is that communications don't enable murder while guns do.

Guns don't enable murder either.