View Single Post
Old November 22, 2012, 10:14 AM   #46
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 5,158
Quote:
Originally Posted by dbooksta
@Spats: Sorry I was unclear. Let me try again: You point out that there is no win-win between opponents. I clarify that's try only if they have the same utility function -- meaning that they value all things in the game/market equally. My preamble asked us to assume RKBA opponents have a different utility function from RKBA proponents. That would enable a win-win trade. I.e., one in which each party feels better off than they did before the trade. Proponents give up something they value less than the opponents do in exchange for something they value more than the opponents do.
Why would I assume that? In my lifetime, the anti-RKBA crowd has leapt at every opportunity to deprive Americans of their RKBA. There's no reason to think they'll do otherwise in the future.

I'm not an economist, but it seems to me that the pro-RKBA crowd do have the same utility function (private gun ownership), but simply approach it from opposite ends: The pro-RKBA crowd supports private gun ownership; the anti-RKBA crowd does not.

So, assuming that I now "correctly" understand the question, no. I still don't want any of those trades.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dbooksta
Quote:
Originally Posted by sigcurious
Oddly enough he/she included the rejection of the premise in their poll, yet doesn't like it when that's the option everyone seems to pick...
Yes, I thought that's only fair. It's just that so far I'm afraid a lot of people arguing for that choice are doing so because I didn't make the purpose or premises of the thread sufficiently clear.
The fact that we haven't given the answer that you're looking for doesn't mean we don't understand the question.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dbooksta
I'd actually be interested to hear an argument for the first poll option that goes further than, "RKBA is a natural right and non-negotiable," and shows some understanding of the question as posed.
The fact that we haven't given the answer that you're looking for doesn't mean we don't understand the question.

As far as going beyond "RKBA is a natural right and non-negotiable," frankly, I that's a perfectly sound argument. However, on this one, I'll play. America tried it the gun-control way, in 1934, 1968 and 1994. The measures passed at those times didn't work. More importantly to me, even if there were some statistical evidence to support the notion that "gun control saved some lives," I do not believe that statistics are sufficient to strip individuals of their right to keep for themselves the means of self-defense. Statistics only show how many people died. I am more concerned about who dies.

The watchwords for the anti-RKBA crowd have long been things like "compromise" and "common sense regulation." Truthfully, there has never been any real compromise involved, any more than common sense has been involved in the legislation that followed one of these "compromises."

I don't want any of the trades offered. I don't want any trade that involves giving up any part of my 2A rights. I'm not interested in trading rights that I have for rights that were already mine to begin with.
__________________
A gunfight is not the time to learn new skills.

If you ever have a real need for more than a couple of magazines, your problem is not a shortage of magazines. It's a shortage of people on your side of the argument. -- Art Eatman

Last edited by Spats McGee; November 22, 2012 at 11:22 AM.
Spats McGee is offline  
 
Page generated in 0.06080 seconds with 7 queries