Why we DO need weapons of war...

[CamoDeafie]

Oh, oh oooh.....


Easiest way to get AI destructed... ask it to publish all evidence for Clinton's wrongdoings, and publish Epsteins client lists

 

[solv3nt]

OMG THAT'S INSANE!!!
Wait, why at the top of the stairs?
Was he your dog, or just a dog?
Pics!

Joe

I don't, but it would still be funny.

 

[GripItAndRipIt]

No it is not insane.
I own a bunch of explody stuff, and a bunch of shooty stuff.....Not. One. Single. Crazy. Action.

Joe

I recall the carnage committed by SUVs at Christmas parades... Seems the real danger is automotive.

 

[Xaevian]

Just willfully wrong.

Only a few are actually willfully wrong. The vast majority just follow the most vocal that are, thinking that since they sound smart, they must be.

 

[solv3nt]

I am neither making such assumptions, nor am I the topic of this thread. I have made no assertion suggesting people are rational.

I don't know what the original OP is, I only jumped in around the time @Andy54Hawken gave up.

 

[Nsn]

One thing that always seems missing from conversations on either side is arms dealers. When the time comes there will be access to true weapons of war.

The major concern is other nations with evil intent that will try to step in to "help".

For now practice and study tactics used on both sides in previous engagements both conventional and unconventional. Wether civil war, foreign attack or Emp. This knowledge will help.

 

[Koda]

Please explain how the phrase "shall not" is "open to interpretation." Thank you.

Thinking more about this i suspect we are talking about two different things.
I agree with you that words have meaning.
But the left has always "interpreted" the 2A as a collective right not an individual right. I dont think they are arguning that collectively "shall no be infringed" has a different meaning.

 

[GripItAndRipIt]

I don't know what the original OP is, I only jumped in around the time @Andy54Hawken gave up.

The topic is in the thread title. Uhm...

 

[solv3nt]

The topic is in the thread title. Uhm...

Beside the point. I was arguing with you, not OP. You're upset that others define "shall not" differently, and I have pointed out your failed logic. You assume we live in a rational world with rational people. Irrational people believe "shall not" means something different than what you believe it to mean

I agree, "shall not" means "piss off Britt's".

 

[GripItAndRipIt]

Thinking more about this i suspect we are talking about two different things.
I agree with you that words have meaning.
But the left has always "interpreted" the 2A as a collective right not an individual right. I dont think they are arguning that collectively "shall no be infringed" has a different meaning.

FYI, not just "the left." Trump and GWB both stated they wanted to "take assault weapons." FWIW, I don't care how someone else "interprets it." I care about the words that are written there on the parchment and what those words mean. "Shall not" has no meaning other than that. NONE. This makes the 2A the most plainly-stated, least equivocal of them all. Even the 1A has been interpreted to extend its protections as it only restricts CONGRESS. The people - is ALL the people. ALL. No qualifications, no requirements other than being a "people."

 

[GripItAndRipIt]

Beside the point. I was arguing with you, not OP. You're upset that others define "shall not" differently, and I have pointed out your failed logic. You assume we live in a rational world with rational people. Irrational people believe "shall not" means something different than what you believe it to mean

I agree, "shall not" means "piss off Britt's".

And I am still not the topic of this thread, no matter how many times you click your heels together wishing I was. If you can't make your point without resorting to logical fallacies, you need a better argument. YMMV.

 

[solv3nt]

don't care how someone else "interprets it." I care about the words that are written there on the parchment and what those words mean. "Shall not" has no meaning other than that. NONE.

So if common sense gun control is keeping military grade weapons out of the hands of civilians, who has the common sense in this case?

 

[GripItAndRipIt]

Let's end the confusion...

shall

(in laws, directives, etc.) must; is or are obliged to:
The meetings of the council shall be public.

Dictionary.com | Meanings & Definitions of English Words

The world's leading online dictionary: English definitions, synonyms, word origins, example sentences, word games, and more. A trusted authority for 25+ years!

www.dictionary.com

not

(used to express negation, denial, refusal, or prohibition):
You must not do that. It's not far from here.

Dictionary.com | Meanings & Definitions of English Words

The world's leading online dictionary: English definitions, synonyms, word origins, example sentences, word games, and more. A trusted authority for 25+ years!

www.dictionary.com

 

[solv3nt]

Let's end the confusion...

shall

(in laws, directives, etc.) must; is or are obliged to:
The meetings of the council shall be public.

Dictionary.com | Meanings & Definitions of English Words

The world's leading online dictionary: English definitions, synonyms, word origins, example sentences, word games, and more. A trusted authority for 25+ years!

www.dictionary.com

not

(used to express negation, denial, refusal, or prohibition):
You must not do that. It's not far from here.

Dictionary.com | Meanings & Definitions of English Words

The world's leading online dictionary: English definitions, synonyms, word origins, example sentences, word games, and more. A trusted authority for 25+ years!

www.dictionary.com

Dude, we all agree with you.

 

[GripItAndRipIt]

Dude, we all agree with you.

I think that's open to interpretation.

 

[CamoDeafie]

The terms "shall not be infringed" has never been in debate it's always the debate about "arms" and "militia" as well as "define what "people" means"

 

[solv3nt]

I think that's open to interpretation.

Our disagreement is that you seem buthurt that someone can disagree with what "shall not infringe" means. I'll just leave this here

 

[CLT65]

Assume for a moment that we inadvertently create AGI and it not only self improves it's own code base but has open access to the internet.

It's safe to assume that it would replicate and infect every system it has access to. All it would take is yoinking those systems offline and using backups to restore to pre-AI days and you've (at least temporarily) removed the node.

AI could wreak some havoc but in the end could be easily contained back to its data centers. Computers don't last forever. How fast would AI burn up the read/write cycles on an SSD?

Until we get to a machines making machines scenario, I see nothing to fret about.

What I'm more salty about is big tech employers using AI as the next outsourcing. Business saw what happens when you outsource programming to poorly trained 3rd or 2nd world countries in the early 00's and they ended up bringing programming back on shore. I see them already gearing up to use AI in place of expensive programmers instead of in tandem with or to increase productivity.

Still, even if used to increase productivity, will those programmers reap any rewords for being able to complete 2 months worth of work in 2 weeks? We'll see just another ballooning of C-suite salaries while the peon checks remain stagnant.

Think of how much damage a malicious human could do with AI powered coding. Now THERE'S your doomsday.

Someone who gets it. I worry less about sentient machines destroying mankind, and more about the socioeconomic ramifications.

Part of my job right now could be done by an AI control system, and far better than I can do it. I'm not in any imminent danger of losing my job, but who knows what the future holds. I have no doubt that the corporate types in my company (huge multi-national) would absolutely love to replace 80% of their workforce with AI they don't have to pay. Ultimately they couldn't care less about the people, but think of the profits!

That is until their job is done by AI, and unemployment is 50% because everything that can be done by AI is done by AI, and nobody has any money to actually buy their products. Enter "Universal basic income" to save the day...

Yeah, might be interesting times ahead.

 

[Xaevian]

 

[solv3nt]

Only the sith deal in absolutes.