Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Weapons are a necessary tool however. This is because there are always going to be arguments which cannot be settled with words, and there are always going to be evil people who will seek to impose their will on others. They cannot be resisted with words.

Wars always start with words, they always end with weapons.

The concept of "evil" is purely perspective. There are always going to be people who who seek to impose their will on others who will always see them as evil. Why are weapons necessary? If you want to win at all costs, sure. You will be able to kill more people and possibly win if you kill enough people who oppose your opinion. Or you could preserve your dignity and win enough support because your ideas make more sense. I once heard there was this one fella named Jesus whose entire philosophy was based on turning the other cheek contrary to two pages back where we were debating how big of a bazookas he could carry. I know that discussion was tongue in cheek but look up "muscular Christianity" and you will see that many see that it isn't just rational people on dakka that have thought that way.

 Gordon Shumway wrote:

 Hordini wrote:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
I don't want to take your precious guns, as much as I think you are weak (both morally and intellectually) for wanting to cling to them so adamantly.

Could you clarify this a bit more? If you think it's morally and intellectually weak for someone to want to keep their guns, do you think it is morally and intellectually strong for someone to want to take someone else's guns away? Or is it determined by how adamantly someone wants these things? For example, if someone wants to keep their guns, but is only moderately adamant about it, are they not as morally and intellectually weak? Does this only apply to guns, or all rights?

Sure thing. I think people who cling to firearms (or any physical weapon) as the end all and be all as an oppositional perspective are inherently weak. Anybody who needs to resort to a physical weapon of violence to resolve any conflict, be it personal or political has already lost the war. Look at what we are doing here right now. I am not threatening you, you are not threatening me with any sort of physical violence. We are having a discussion. Someday, someone will will gain a majority of opinion and win the debate. Look at the previous posts. Many (from the pro gun perspective) point out that any insurrection will win because numbers are on the winning side regardless of the quality of arms. That is where the power truly rests, in popular opinion and the ability to sway it. Guns may help sway opinion, but once one has to resort to that last resort, they have failed in every other aspect...so yeah, guns are morally and intellectually weak.

Edit addition: that in no way means that I want guns to be outlawed or overly restricted but I do reserve the right to laugh at people who do to an extreme or don't to an extreme--first amendment came before second.

Personally I find people unwilling to fight for anything and those willing to believe and submit to 'majority of opinion' to settle issues about individual rights morally and intellectually weak as well as naive.

Totally agree with you there. And I didn't have to hit you in the face or shoot you to do it. Good job to us.

Edit: Ali was a smarter fighter than Frasier. Fraiser lost.

Edit: Fraiser had bigger guns.

I'm not sure that analogy worked since they were still punching each other? I mean, ultimately, that was a "conflict" that was resolved with violence.

 Ouze wrote:
I'm not sure that analogy worked since they were still punching each other? I mean, ultimately, that was a "conflict" that was resolved with violence.

Yeah, i got caught up in the drama of old boxing matches again and had no one to pick me back up.

Well, as an analogy aficionado, I too have felt the sting of one getting away from you.

 Ouze wrote:
Well, as an analogy aficionado, I too have felt the sting of one getting away from you.

Those damed butterflies...step on the bastards. ..don't let them get away,

 Gordon Shumway wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Weapons are a necessary tool however. This is because there are always going to be arguments which cannot be settled with words, and there are always going to be evil people who will seek to impose their will on others. They cannot be resisted with words.

Wars always start with words, they always end with weapons.

The concept of "evil" is purely perspective. There are always going to be people who who seek to impose their will on others who will always see them as evil. Why are weapons necessary? If you want to win at all costs, sure. You will be able to kill more people and possibly win if you kill enough people who oppose your opinion. Or you could preserve your dignity and win enough support because your ideas make more sense. I once heard there was this one fella named Jesus whose entire philosophy was based on turning the other cheek contrary to two pages back where we were debating how big of a bazookas he could carry. I know that discussion was tongue in cheek but look up "muscular Christianity" and you will see that many see that it isn't just rational people on dakka that have thought that way.

While Jesus did advocate turning the other cheek, he isn't a pacifist. The disciples were commanded to take up the sword, and many times God commanded the faithful to make total war on their enemies.

Show me where this person ever once said "kill. " because,he is a pretty smart fella.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Weapons are a necessary tool however. This is because there are always going to be arguments which cannot be settled with words, and there are always going to be evil people who will seek to impose their will on others. They cannot be resisted with words.

Wars always start with words, they always end with weapons.

The concept of "evil" is purely perspective. There are always going to be people who who seek to impose their will on others who will always see them as evil. Why are weapons necessary? If you want to win at all costs, sure. You will be able to kill more people and possibly win if you kill enough people who oppose your opinion. Or you could preserve your dignity and win enough support because your ideas make more sense. I once heard there was this one fella named Jesus whose entire philosophy was based on turning the other cheek contrary to two pages back where we were debating how big of a bazookas he could carry. I know that discussion was tongue in cheek but look up "muscular Christianity" and you will see that many see that it isn't just rational people on dakka that have thought that way.

While Jesus did advocate turning the other cheek, he isn't a pacifist. The disciples were commanded to take up the sword, and many times God commanded the faithful to make total war on their enemies.

All cherish those who believe n the savior. And if you think I am talking about 40k , good luck fella

 Ouze wrote:

 Spacemanvic wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
A letter has been sent by 236 members of congress to the director of the ATF to question the proposed reclassification of M855's to "no sporting purpose", among other things.

I'm not sure how it's possible so many legislators are unaware that this was actually already secretly done wayyyy back in 2012, but I suppose they could just all be as dumb as me.

It's extremely possible. "We have to pass the bill to know what's in it" readily comes to mind. Many times, regulatory changes dont get much press time/exposure, and many times, it is the staff of the representatives that do most of the reading and only give the rep what he or she needs to know in regards of how to vote on a particular issue. That this is a regulatory change, its not surprising that it went unnoticed for as long as it did.

This article gives a good accounting of how long this move has been in the works, using ATF source documents to bolster it's claims. Give it a read:
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2015/03/06/exclusive-atf-has-already-banned-common-at15-green-tip-ammunition-n1966761

Why is the timeline of this stealth change moving? What happened to it being secretly banned in 2012 - why are we now moving to "it was in the works since 2014"?

We havent, Ill help you keep up:

2012, November "Sporting Purpose" determination made without public comment. Links to November determination PDF pulled from ATF by December.

2014, ATF published rules (December) exclude exemption for SS109/ XM855, no public comment period preceded change of published rules. ATF claims exclusion was a "typo".

2015, ATF solicits public comment on how best to stop manufacture and importation of XM855 bullets.

I love how gun advocates love bringing up that little bit of Luke while ignoring all the other times Jesus professed a distaste for violence.

Only twice in the NT does Jesus talking about having swords. Matthew 10:34 is figurative, a direct reference to Messianic prophecy common in Jesus' time. The sword in this case, is divine truth or more simply the Word of God. This was a well understood Jewish analogy.

The second time, in Luke, Jesus wants a sword not to defend himself, but rather to convict himself. The authorities who sought his arrest accused him of leading a band of brigands, but you can't do much briganding without weapons. Jesus desired 2 swords so that he would be arrested, tried, and convicted, so as too fulfill his purpose.

Jesus' philosophy is profoundly anti-violence. The one time one of his disciples took up a weapon, Jesus expressed nothing but disappointment and warned Peter that those who live violently die violently.

Jesus, as best as we can know him, was a pacifist.

1 Samuel chapter 15 verse 2

The Prophet Samuel delivers a message to King Saul.

This is what the Lord Almighty says: ‘I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy[a] all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’"

Later in the same passage, Saul disobeys by keeping the Amalekite King alive as a prisoner and keeping animals as spoils. Samuel confronts him about it and informs him the God has rejected him as King over Israel. Samuel then kills Agag himself.

God is not averse to violence. He is a god of judgement and righteous anger just as much as he is a god of love and forgiveness.

I'm talking bout Jesus and NT, not OT I think we all know OT is quite violent with a healthy dose of genocide here and there

 LordofHats wrote:
I'm talking bout Jesus and NT, not OT I think we all know OT is quite violent with a healthy dose of genocide here and there

They're not entirely different things. The god in the old testament is the same and the one in the new.

 Grey Templar wrote:
They're not entirely different things. The god in the old testament is the same and the one in the new.

I was responding to the comment that Jesus 'wasn't a pacifist.' I think it's abundantly clear in the NT that Jesus was a pacifist. The most violent thing he does in the entire thing is knocking over the merchant stands in the Temple.

Why is Jesus so peaceful, while in the OT God seems to endorse the use of violence? That probably deserves its own thread

 LordofHats wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
They're not entirely different things. The god in the old testament is the same and the one in the new.

I was responding to the comment that Jesus 'wasn't a pacifist.' I think it's abundantly clear in the NT that Jesus was a pacifist. The most violent thing he does in the entire thing is knocking over the merchant stands in the Temple.

Why is Jesus so peaceful, while in the OT God seems to endorse the use of violence? That probably deserves its own thread

Well its because Jesus wasn't coming to be violent. He was coming to be the final sacrifice for sin.

The second coming will be the violent one.

But even then, the violence of the Second Coming is not violence brought by Jesus, but by man's own sins. The great finale for the original sin that has plagued man since Adam and Eve.

Its the violence of God's wrath upon sin. Its very much being delivered by God. Sin is the reason, but its not the source.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Its the violence of God's wrath upon sin. Its very much being delivered by God. Sin is the reason, but its not the source.

Well we are discussing John of Patmos' acid trip Both interpretations are probably equally valid

 Spacemanvic wrote:
We havent, Ill help you keep up:

2012, November "Sporting Purpose" determination made without public comment. Links to November determination PDF pulled from ATF by December.

2014, ATF published rules (December) exclude exemption for SS109/ XM855, no public comment period preceded change of published rules. ATF claims exclusion was a "typo".

2015, ATF solicits public comment on how best to stop manufacture and importation of XM855 bullets.

I'm glad we're still going with this narrative. It's my favorite one because it requires a shadowy government fantasy.

it's going to be super funny when public pressure during the comment period causes the ATF to reconsider the plan to remove the exemption; and the system works, because I'm going to keep asking how that's possible when the exemption was pulled 3 years ago in a secret document.

What has a government got to gain by pissing off the people so much that they revolt?

 Ouze wrote:

 Spacemanvic wrote:
We havent, Ill help you keep up:

2012, November "Sporting Purpose" determination made without public comment. Links to November determination PDF pulled from ATF by December.

2014, ATF published rules (December) exclude exemption for SS109/ XM855, no public comment period preceded change of published rules. ATF claims exclusion was a "typo".

2015, ATF solicits public comment on how best to stop manufacture and importation of XM855 bullets.

I'm glad we're still going with this narrative. It's my favorite one because it requires a shadowy government fantasy.

it's going to be super funny when public pressure during the comment period causes the ATF to reconsider the plan to remove the exemption; and the system works, because I'm going to keep asking how that's possible when the exemption was pulled 3 years ago in a secret document.

Stop being obtuse. There is no secret document (sorry to pop your lil progressive bubble), just ATF removing documents from their archives whose existence is mentioned in ATF documents circa 2014-2015. This is nothing new as ATF has been shady in its dealings for well over 30 years. Its not a "fantasy" when its actually happening, you should keep up with current events

I hope pressure can be exerted to change all this, but Im not holding my breath as the Executive Branch seems to get its way at every turn lately. I guess its a "democracy" (which this country isnt, its a republic) if its your guy in power.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Norn King wrote:
What has a government got to gain by pissing off the people so much that they revolt?

An excuse to exert complete control in the guise of an emergency is my guess.

 Spacemanvic wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 Spacemanvic wrote:
We havent, Ill help you keep up:

2012, November "Sporting Purpose" determination made without public comment. Links to November determination PDF pulled from ATF by December.

2014, ATF published rules (December) exclude exemption for SS109/ XM855, no public comment period preceded change of published rules. ATF claims exclusion was a "typo".

2015, ATF solicits public comment on how best to stop manufacture and importation of XM855 bullets.

I'm glad we're still going with this narrative. It's my favorite one because it requires a shadowy government fantasy.

it's going to be super funny when public pressure during the comment period causes the ATF to reconsider the plan to remove the exemption; and the system works, because I'm going to keep asking how that's possible when the exemption was pulled 3 years ago in a secret document.

Stop being obtuse. There is no secret document (sorry to pop your lil progressive bubble), just ATF removing documents from their archives whose existence is mentioned in ATF documents circa 2014-2015. This is nothing new as ATF has been shady in its dealings for well over 30 years. Its not a "fantasy" when its actually happening, you should keep up with current events

I hope pressure can be exerted to change all this, but Im not holding my breath as the Executive Branch seems to get its way at every turn lately. I guess its a "democracy" (which this country isnt, its a republic) if its your guy in power.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Norn King wrote:
What has a government got to gain by pissing off the people so much that they revolt?

An excuse to exert complete control in the guise of an emergency is my guess.

I don't buy this. Any idiot worth his salt knows that he's probably going to shorten his life expectancy if he tries this.

 Spacemanvic wrote:
I guess its a "democracy" (which this country isnt, its a republic)

Merriam Webster wrote:republic
noun re·pub·lic \ri-ˈpə-blik\ : a country that is governed by elected representatives and by an elected leader (such as a president) rather than by a king or queen

Merriam Webster wrote:democracy
noun de·moc·ra·cy \di-ˈmä-krə-sē\

: a form of government in which people choose leaders by voting

: a country ruled by democracy

: an organization or situation in which everyone is treated equally and has equal rights

A republic is a form of democracy by definition, no matter how much you wish it otherwise.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Spacemanvic wrote:
I guess its a "democracy" (which this country isnt, its a republic)

Merriam Webster wrote:republic
noun re·pub·lic \ri-ˈpə-blik\ : a country that is governed by elected representatives and by an elected leader (such as a president) rather than by a king or queen

Merriam Webster wrote:democracy
noun de·moc·ra·cy \di-ˈmä-krə-sē\

: a form of government in which people choose leaders by voting

: a country ruled by democracy

: an organization or situation in which everyone is treated equally and has equal rights

A republic is a form of democracy by definition, no matter how much you wish it otherwise.

Actually, the two are antithetical to each other. Democracy is the unlimited power of the majority over that of the individual, whereas Republic is the limited power of the majority protecting the rights of the individual and the minority.

Your argument is off the mark in regards to the political structure of the United States. If you care to reply, Ill be off line for several hours as Ill be at the gun store working, so it may be a while.

 Spacemanvic wrote:
Stop being obtuse. There is no secret document (sorry to pop your lil progressive bubble)

Well, I must be obtuse - that, or your story is confusing as all hell. Definitely one or the other.

In your timeline, the ATF pulls the exemption for M855 which would as a result ban it from lawful sale in 2012. They don't actually ban it in any functional way, or keep it from being sold by the bucketful, because reasons. This is all laid out on a document which no longer exists and so the actual effect of this, well, I guess you can't understand stuff when you're in a progressive bubble like I am.

The important point of this is there is no secret document.

 Spacemanvic wrote:
The exemption for XM855 ammunition and the S109 bullet was pulled quietly, wiithout public comment in December 2012. Went completely under the radar, the PDF on the ATF site was scrubbed. We can find links for it using WABAC, and some people on 4Chan dug a little deeper and found that yes, ATF did make the determination December 2012.

Except for that secret document. But that was probably something else. Moving on.

Then in 2014, the ATF omits the round from the exemption list. When called on it, they claim it's a typo - your explanation, I haven't researched this. I'll assume that's true. So at this point the round has been banned for 2 years but it's a double secret ban that no one knows about except the ATF and when they are called on it, they also pretend it doesn't exist. So, that's pretty effective.

So, in February 2015, 3 years after the secret ban took effect, they are proposing to remove it from the marketplace. This proposal to remove the ammo from the marketplace, and not at all to determine if they serve a sporting purpose, is published in a document entitled "ATF FRAMEWORK FOR DETERMINING WHETHER CERTAIN PROJECTILES ARE “PRIMARILY INTENDED FOR SPORTING PURPOSES” WITHIN THE MEANING OF 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(17)(C)". It has a comment period ending in March 2015, which makes sense for a determination that was made 3 years ago.

This all makes total sense.

 Spacemanvic wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Spacemanvic wrote:
I guess its a "democracy" (which this country isnt, its a republic)

Merriam Webster wrote:republic
noun re·pub·lic \ri-ˈpə-blik\ : a country that is governed by elected representatives and by an elected leader (such as a president) rather than by a king or queen

Merriam Webster wrote:democracy
noun de·moc·ra·cy \di-ˈmä-krə-sē\

: a form of government in which people choose leaders by voting

: a country ruled by democracy

: an organization or situation in which everyone is treated equally and has equal rights

A republic is a form of democracy by definition, no matter how much you wish it otherwise.

Actually, the two are antithetical to each other. Democracy is the unlimited power of the majority over that of the individual, whereas Republic is the limited power of the majority protecting the rights of the individual and the minority.

Your argument is off the mark in regards to the political structure of the United States. If you care to reply, Ill be off line for several hours as Ill be at the gun store working, so it may be a while.

And how is the legislature chosen? Through voting, which means the majority rules, which means a republic is a democracy. QED.

Where's d-usa? Someone did the "Not a democracy" claim!

O'dear, not the old "not a democracy" schtick.

 MrDwhitey wrote:
Where's d-usa? Someone did the "Not a democracy" claim!

It still is my #1 indicator for "someone who doesn't know what they are talking about".

It ranks up there with having people try to tell me about the four branches of government .

It's not like it is that difficult:

Are we a democracy or a republic: yes.

There, done.