INTENSITY²
Politics, Mature and taboo => Political Pundits => Topic started by: odeon on September 09, 2013, 10:57:00 PM
-
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/blind-people-granted-gun-permits-iowa-20198854 (http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/blind-people-granted-gun-permits-iowa-20198854)
I think they should allow them to drive, too.
-
Our gun law puts more law-abiding people in danger than the Iowan does.
-
:viking:
-
:viking:
Yes, allowing people to defend themselves with guns (unlike Sweden does) is :viking:
Allowing blind people to defend themselves with guns is :viking: :viking: :viking:
-
I like how the article uses "gun permit" and "weapons permit" interchangeably. :zombiefuck:
Just maybe, a gun shouldn't be the weapon of choice?
-
A taser would be better, but I like the idea that the right to carry arms is so important that not even blindness is a reason to deny you.
In Sweden and the UK you can't even legally defend yourself with pepperspray, not even if all your senses are perfect :facepalm2:
-
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/blind-people-granted-gun-permits-iowa-20198854 (http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/blind-people-granted-gun-permits-iowa-20198854)
I think they should allow them to drive, too.
They could get one of these :2thumbsup:
(http://chivethethrottle.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/image828.jpg?w=500&h=375)
-
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/blind-people-granted-gun-permits-iowa-20198854 (http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/blind-people-granted-gun-permits-iowa-20198854)
I think they should allow them to drive, too.
Obama: I would like to see tighter restrictions on the sale and use of guns. We as americans need to be aware of how to responsibly use these weapons. *presents like a 24 page fucking plan with a bunch of unconstitutional shit in it*
*SHORT WHILE LATER*
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/blind-people-granted-gun-permits-iowa-20198854 (http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/blind-people-granted-gun-permits-iowa-20198854)
(https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRpbex2o4ORbLaVF9KSi3k8vAiL2uFQz_RaJvysJ-rSWRy6866L)
-
The 2nd Amendment was for defending you against people like Obama. Just sayin'.
-
The 2nd Amendment was for defending you against people like Obama. Just sayin'.
Obvious to anyone with any kind of common sense. Trouble is, my country is filled to the brim with a bunch of dumbasses who aren't even able to think.
-
So, what, Obama is pro-gun laws because he's scared of people like you guys and your guns?
lol
ok
you try taking on the US government with your rifles
-
So, what, Obama is pro-gun laws because he's scared of people like you guys and your guns?
lol
ok
you try taking on the US government with your rifles
No he's pro *retarded* gun laws because he's a fucking idiot. Nice try, Soaf.
-
So, what, Obama is pro-gun laws because he's scared of people like you guys and your guns?
lol
ok
you try taking on the US government with your rifles
Of course they could shoot the government with their rifles.
Funny that you think it would be wrong to do so.
-
So, what, Obama is pro-gun laws because he's scared of people like you guys and your guns?
lol
ok
you try taking on the US government with your rifles
Of course they could shoot the government with their rifles.
Funny that you think it would be wrong to do so.
Yeah. People shock me when they say things like-
you try taking on the US government with your rifles
And use that all sarcastic, thinking they sound clever. Yeah, a small band of stupid middle eastern rednecks had the U.S. military scrambling for YEARS trying to bring them down.
And millions of armed folk right in the homeland would be SOOOOO EASY to beat. Because rockets and missles and tanks and shit. Soaf, you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the reality of war. There are many ways to fight. Pictured below, is not the way it happens.
(https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTL3ROaGiS77jaaO1Mfc_UvozxCYMT92n6lO9aTR_XyI1z8iJhquA)
People did that for a while, then learned, oh shit. I can run away and hide behind a fucking tree. Then it further evolved until something developed called guerilla warfare. Look it up and tell me there no chance. ::)
-
Adam probably still thinks Obama is a nice guy :facepalm2:
-
Adam probably still thinks Obama is a nice guy :facepalm2:
Looks like it. Even after The national defense resources authorization bullshit, NSA, we're going to go kill people in Syria after giving them a bunch of weapons and leave a central bank behind, etc.
-
Huh? I think you misunderstand me. Yeah you could SHOOT AT the government. It would be pretty suicidial though. Wanna take on the entire US army with your little rifle?
and Rage, that's terrorism. you want people to do that? you think that achieves anythnig?
-
Huh? I think you misunderstand me. Yeah you could SHOOT AT the government. It would be pretty suicidial though. Wanna take on the entire US army with your little rifle?
You missed the point. They should of course not fight the US army in the battlefield. That would be impossible.
and Rage, that's terrorism. you want people to do that? you think that achieves anythnig?
Why is that terrorism? How can it be terrorism fighting someone who commits crimes against the constitution? Aren't those people the real terrorists, traitors etc?
-
Gotta love the reactions here. We're talking about *blind* people. :lol1:
-
Gotta love the reactions here. We're talking about *blind* people. :lol1:
Why do you hate blind people Odeon?
;)
-
Huh? I think you misunderstand me. Yeah you could SHOOT AT the government. It would be pretty suicidial though. Wanna take on the entire US army with your little rifle?
and Rage, that's terrorism. you want people to do that? you think that achieves anythnig?
Yeah you could SHOOT AT the government
Yes, you could shoot bullets at <government> with a rifle, by yourself. No, sir. You misunderstand me. Guns would be necessary for overthrow. No, essential. But many other techniques would need to be used too.
It would be pretty suicidial though.
No, it wouldn't. Done the right way, the government would be back in line in no time. They don't like losing money.
Wanna take on the entire US army with your little rifle?
By myself, no. And it wouldn't be the entire military anyway. Huge chunks would refuse to fight their own people.
and Rage, that's terrorism.
No its not. Its justifiable and LEGAL revolution. Forcing people to be debt slaves, frequently committing unconstitutional acts without the consent of the citizen, and shitting all over democracy is terrorism. In fact...
Common definitions of terrorism refer only to those violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror); are perpetrated for a religious, political, or ideological goal; and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (civilians). Some definitions now include acts of unlawful violence and war. The use of similar tactics by criminal organizations for protection rackets or to enforce a code of silence is usually not labeled terrorism, though these same actions may be labeled terrorism when done by a politically motivated group.
Go ahead and ask me to link that description to thousands and thousands of acts committed by the U.S. government in just the past few years. Go ahead. Ahem. Moving on for now.
you want people to do that?
I really, REALLY do.
you think that achieves anythnig?
Point blank: YES. It does, and it has many times. In fact it kept the British from treating us much the same way our own government does now. Read a history book, man.
-
Huh? I think you misunderstand me. Yeah you could SHOOT AT the government. It would be pretty suicidial though. Wanna take on the entire US army with your little rifle?
and Rage, that's terrorism. you want people to do that? you think that achieves anythnig?
Ladies and gentleman, I give you the drones and tanks argument.
The go to argument for any gun control advocate who does not want to admit that he/she wants to ban weapons because, in their mind, another's rights end where their feelings begin.
-
Huh? I think you misunderstand me. Yeah you could SHOOT AT the government. It would be pretty suicidial though. Wanna take on the entire US army with your little rifle?
and Rage, that's terrorism. you want people to do that? you think that achieves anythnig?
Ladies and gentleman, I give you the drones and tanks argument.
The go to argument for any gun control advocate who does not want to admit that he/she wants to ban weapons because, in their mind, another's rights end where their feelings begin.
Exactly. I love how he says that trying to fight off terrorism makes you a terrorist. Brilliant. For someone who claims to love girls so much, he also oddly seems to like TAKING IT UP THE ASS. Which is what you are doing when you throw away all protections in the name of "peace".
There are some people who words just won't reach, Adam. Violence is unfortunately necessary at times.
-
Huh? I think you misunderstand me. Yeah you could SHOOT AT the government. It would be pretty suicidial though. Wanna take on the entire US army with your little rifle?
and Rage, that's terrorism. you want people to do that? you think that achieves anythnig?
Ladies and gentleman, I give you the drones and tanks argument.
The go to argument for any gun control advocate who does not want to admit that he/she wants to ban weapons because, in their mind, another's rights end where their feelings begin.
Exactly. I love how he says that trying to fight off terrorism makes you a terrorist. Brilliant.
Third :agreed:
-
Gotta love the reactions here. We're talking about *blind* people. :lol1:
Blind people have rights, just like everyone else. Blind people are responsible for what they do with their guns, just like everyone else. There are many varieties of blind.
In America, driving a car is a privilege, not a right. Owning a gun is a right.
-
Gotta love the reactions here. We're talking about *blind* people. :lol1:
Blind people have rights, just like everyone else. Blind people are responsible for what they do with their guns, just like everyone else. There are many varieties of blind.
In America, driving a car is a privilege, not a right. Owning a gun is a right.
Originally, I was just poking fun at the fact that Obama was attempting some unconstitutional gun controls, everyone told him to STFU, then short while later people are giving guns to other people that can't even see.
Can't we have a happy medium here? :orly:
-
Huh? I think you misunderstand me. Yeah you could SHOOT AT the government. It would be pretty suicidial though. Wanna take on the entire US army with your little rifle?
and Rage, that's terrorism. you want people to do that? you think that achieves anythnig?
I just thought of something real funny. If you were a religious nut, you would sound a lot like a young Piers Morgan.
-
Adam isn't BRAVE!:arrr::arrr::arrr::arrr::arrr::arrr:
-
Yeah. Cowards usually comply with anything to avoid confrontation, unless its a confrontation against their peers. They'll stab you in the back in a split second and believe it to be justice.
-
There is nothing wrong with a blind person owning a gun. its almost like a black having one, :zoinks:
-
There is nothing wrong with a blind person owning a gun. its almost like a black having one, :zoinks:
Can you even into MrColionNoir?
-
Huh? I think you misunderstand me. Yeah you could SHOOT AT the government. It would be pretty suicidial though. Wanna take on the entire US army with your little rifle?
and Rage, that's terrorism. you want people to do that? you think that achieves anythnig?
dun dun dun
(http://sphotos-d.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/1013673_648331868528875_280665764_n.jpg)
(http://sphotos-g.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/1148824_690902557605139_1032545945_n.jpg)
-
More like Unites States of Bank. Or united slaves of cleverly designed eternally increasing debt.
-
Gotta love the reactions here. We're talking about *blind* people. :lol1:
Why do you hate blind people Odeon?
;)
Cos it's all so unfair. :laugh:
-
I don't understand how your right to gun ownership is so encapsulating. Just the mere mention of any form of gun 'control' seems to spark a reaction like this.
Is it really the be all and end all of life? For people to exercise their right to bear arms. Even if they can't see?
I may be mistaken, but I get the idea that this dominates the brains of some American's a bit too much.
Perhaps I don't 'get it' because I live in a different part of the world. :dunno:
-
I don't understand how your right to gun ownership is so encapsulating. Just the mere mention of any form of gun 'control' seems to spark a reaction like this.
Is it really the be all and end all of life? For people to exercise their right to bear arms. Even if they can't see?
I may be mistaken, but I get the idea that this dominates the brains of some American's a bit too much.
Perhaps I don't 'get it' because I live in a different part of the world. :dunno:
I for my part never understood why not all people had the American view on guns, no matter their own gunlaws. How can you not think that owning a gun for self-defence is a right? It has puzzled me since I was 5 years old and my dad told me how hard it was to legally get a gun in Sweden vs. America.
-
There are people in Europe with an "American" view on guns. In Crete, for instance. They have a harsh gunlaw but don't give a damn. They buy guns in the black market.
Traditional Greek Cretans (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CI64lSg8GIo#)
I think that people who don't think it's an absolute right to own a gun are feminized and/or brainwashed in some strange way.
-
I don't understand how your right to gun ownership is so encapsulating. Just the mere mention of any form of gun 'control' seems to spark a reaction like this.
Is it really the be all and end all of life? For people to exercise their right to bear arms. Even if they can't see?
I may be mistaken, but I get the idea that this dominates the brains of some American's a bit too much.
Perhaps I don't 'get it' because I live in a different part of the world. :dunno:
I for my part never understood why not all people had the American view on guns, no matter their own gunlaws. How can you not think that owning a gun for self-defence is a right? It has puzzled me since I was 5 years old and my dad told me how hard it was to legally get a gun in Sweden vs. America.
I suppose I used to too. I love gun's. Used one in the army (although spent more time polishing and cleaning the mofo than firing it)
When I first moved into this house alone (before the urchin) i paid a lot of money for a Beretta pistol. I was scared (Birmingham is twinned with scumsville) and had been burgled at my previous address. I came home to find them still upstairs ransacking my knickers drawer. Hence the reason i got the pistol.
I rarely talk about it, and don't brag about it because it is gone. One night while I was asleep on my sofa someone came through my patio door (ok ok it wasn't locked) and took the fucker from my hand. While I slept.
Despite this, I still kept my views about owning a gun and that didn't change until I became a mom and this coincided with several 'massacre' incidents in the US involving children. This made me believe that children have a right to grow up free from fear of being gunned down in their playground and that their right to do this supersedes anyone else's right to own a gun. I know it is not that simple. I can conveniently make it simple living in England. :tard:
-
Owning a Beretta in England is :viking: :plus:
Too bad you lost it :(
-
I don't understand how your right to gun ownership is so encapsulating. Just the mere mention of any form of gun 'control' seems to spark a reaction like this.
Is it really the be all and end all of life? For people to exercise their right to bear arms. Even if they can't see?
I may be mistaken, but I get the idea that this dominates the brains of some American's a bit too much.
Perhaps I don't 'get it' because I live in a different part of the world. :dunno:
I for my part never understood why not all people had the American view on guns, no matter their own gunlaws. How can you not think that owning a gun for self-defence is a right? It has puzzled me since I was 5 years old and my dad told me how hard it was to legally get a gun in Sweden vs. America.
I suppose I used to too. I love gun's. Used one in the army (although spent more time polishing and cleaning the mofo than firing it)
When I first moved into this house alone (before the urchin) i paid a lot of money for a Beretta pistol. I was scared (Birmingham is twinned with scumsville) and had been burgled at my previous address. I came home to find them still upstairs ransacking my knickers drawer. Hence the reason i got the pistol.
I rarely talk about it, and don't brag about it because it is gone. One night while I was asleep on my sofa someone came through my patio door (ok ok it wasn't locked) and took the fucker from my hand. While I slept.
Despite this, I still kept my views about owning a gun and that didn't change until I became a mom and this coincided with several 'massacre' incidents in the US involving children. This made me believe that children have a right to grow up free from fear of being gunned down in their playground and that their right to do this supersedes anyone else's right to own a gun. I know it is not that simple. I can conveniently make it simple living in England. :tard:
It's not that simple.
The other part of this is that not all legally blind people are the same. It's convenient to think that the blind just see a field of black, but the reality is that there are many different types of blindness, and I don't think it's right to judge anyone's ability to operate a firearm on such a broad standard as "blindness". Also, note that blind people are just as liable for what they do with their guns as sighted people are.
-
I don't understand how your right to gun ownership is so encapsulating. Just the mere mention of any form of gun 'control' seems to spark a reaction like this.
Is it really the be all and end all of life? For people to exercise their right to bear arms. Even if they can't see?
I may be mistaken, but I get the idea that this dominates the brains of some American's a bit too much.
Perhaps I don't 'get it' because I live in a different part of the world. :dunno:
I for my part never understood why not all people had the American view on guns, no matter their own gunlaws. How can you not think that owning a gun for self-defence is a right? It has puzzled me since I was 5 years old and my dad told me how hard it was to legally get a gun in Sweden vs. America.
I suppose I used to too. I love gun's. Used one in the army (although spent more time polishing and cleaning the mofo than firing it)
When I first moved into this house alone (before the urchin) i paid a lot of money for a Beretta pistol. I was scared (Birmingham is twinned with scumsville) and had been burgled at my previous address. I came home to find them still upstairs ransacking my knickers drawer. Hence the reason i got the pistol.
I rarely talk about it, and don't brag about it because it is gone. One night while I was asleep on my sofa someone came through my patio door (ok ok it wasn't locked) and took the fucker from my hand. While I slept.
Despite this, I still kept my views about owning a gun and that didn't change until I became a mom and this coincided with several 'massacre' incidents in the US involving children. This made me believe that children have a right to grow up free from fear of being gunned down in their playground and that their right to do this supersedes anyone else's right to own a gun. I know it is not that simple. I can conveniently make it simple living in England. :tard:
It's not that simple.
The other part of this is that not all legally blind people are the same. It's convenient to think that the blind just see a field of black, but the reality is that there are many different types of blindness, and I don't think it's right to judge anyone's ability to operate a firearm on such a broad standard as "blindness". Also, note that blind people are just as liable for what they do with their guns as sighted people are.
Agreed here is a link http://vision.about.com/od/faqs/f/What-Does-It-Mean-To-Be-Legally-Blind.htm (http://vision.about.com/od/faqs/f/What-Does-It-Mean-To-Be-Legally-Blind.htm)
-
I don't understand how your right to gun ownership is so encapsulating. Just the mere mention of any form of gun 'control' seems to spark a reaction like this.
Is it really the be all and end all of life? For people to exercise their right to bear arms. Even if they can't see?
I may be mistaken, but I get the idea that this dominates the brains of some American's a bit too much.
Perhaps I don't 'get it' because I live in a different part of the world. :dunno:
I for my part never understood why not all people had the American view on guns, no matter their own gunlaws. How can you not think that owning a gun for self-defence is a right? It has puzzled me since I was 5 years old and my dad told me how hard it was to legally get a gun in Sweden vs. America.
I suppose I used to too. I love gun's. Used one in the army (although spent more time polishing and cleaning the mofo than firing it)
When I first moved into this house alone (before the urchin) i paid a lot of money for a Beretta pistol. I was scared (Birmingham is twinned with scumsville) and had been burgled at my previous address. I came home to find them still upstairs ransacking my knickers drawer. Hence the reason i got the pistol.
I rarely talk about it, and don't brag about it because it is gone. One night while I was asleep on my sofa someone came through my patio door (ok ok it wasn't locked) and took the fucker from my hand. While I slept.
Despite this, I still kept my views about owning a gun and that didn't change until I became a mom and this coincided with several 'massacre' incidents in the US involving children. This made me believe that children have a right to grow up free from fear of being gunned down in their playground and that their right to do this supersedes anyone else's right to own a gun. I know it is not that simple. I can conveniently make it simple living in England. :tard:
It's not that simple.
The other part of this is that not all legally blind people are the same. It's convenient to think that the blind just see a field of black, but the reality is that there are many different types of blindness, and I don't think it's right to judge anyone's ability to operate a firearm on such a broad standard as "blindness". Also, note that blind people are just as liable for what they do with their guns as sighted people are.
Actually "legally blind" is a matter of legislation and quite clear. The details may differ between your country and mine, but not significantly, as I understand it.
Being "liable" will not help if the damage is already done.
-
I don't understand how your right to gun ownership is so encapsulating. Just the mere mention of any form of gun 'control' seems to spark a reaction like this.
Is it really the be all and end all of life? For people to exercise their right to bear arms. Even if they can't see?
I may be mistaken, but I get the idea that this dominates the brains of some American's a bit too much.
Perhaps I don't 'get it' because I live in a different part of the world. :dunno:
I for my part never understood why not all people had the American view on guns, no matter their own gunlaws. How can you not think that owning a gun for self-defence is a right? It has puzzled me since I was 5 years old and my dad told me how hard it was to legally get a gun in Sweden vs. America.
I suppose I used to too. I love gun's. Used one in the army (although spent more time polishing and cleaning the mofo than firing it)
When I first moved into this house alone (before the urchin) i paid a lot of money for a Beretta pistol. I was scared (Birmingham is twinned with scumsville) and had been burgled at my previous address. I came home to find them still upstairs ransacking my knickers drawer. Hence the reason i got the pistol.
I rarely talk about it, and don't brag about it because it is gone. One night while I was asleep on my sofa someone came through my patio door (ok ok it wasn't locked) and took the fucker from my hand. While I slept.
Despite this, I still kept my views about owning a gun and that didn't change until I became a mom and this coincided with several 'massacre' incidents in the US involving children. This made me believe that children have a right to grow up free from fear of being gunned down in their playground and that their right to do this supersedes anyone else's right to own a gun. I know it is not that simple. I can conveniently make it simple living in England. :tard:
It's not that simple.
The other part of this is that not all legally blind people are the same. It's convenient to think that the blind just see a field of black, but the reality is that there are many different types of blindness, and I don't think it's right to judge anyone's ability to operate a firearm on such a broad standard as "blindness". Also, note that blind people are just as liable for what they do with their guns as sighted people are.
Actually "legally blind" is a matter of legislation and quite clear. The details may differ between your country and mine, but not significantly, as I understand it.
Being "liable" will not help if the damage is already done.
"Clear" and "broad" are two different concepts.
-
I don't understand how your right to gun ownership is so encapsulating. Just the mere mention of any form of gun 'control' seems to spark a reaction like this.
Is it really the be all and end all of life? For people to exercise their right to bear arms. Even if they can't see?
I may be mistaken, but I get the idea that this dominates the brains of some American's a bit too much.
Perhaps I don't 'get it' because I live in a different part of the world. :dunno:
You actually are mistaken Bodie. I think yurop is a bit biased against us cowboys. See originally I was pointing out that Obama was pushing for hardcore gun control, trying to ban "assault" weapons, etc.
Then all of the sudden blind people can buy and use guns. I was making fun of that. Entertainingly enough, here comes a british socialist like Adam, spouting off anti-gun jargon, complete with "u r a terrorist", and "tanks an drones r too strong r u dumb?"
Yeah. See, recap: I was making fun of this legislation(give blind people guns), and a brainless anti gun nut takes that as an attack on their ideals. Ohhh the irony. :autism:
-
Actually "legally blind" is a matter of legislation and quite clear. The details may differ between your country and mine, but not significantly, as I understand it.
Being "liable" will not help if the damage is already done.
Let's see...in Iowa a few blind people might get guns. They might mistakenly shoot innocent people when firing the guns in self-defence. In Sweden you are not allowed to carry a gun in self-defence at all, which means that an armed criminal or a criminal with a knife or just a physically stronger criminal or a number of criminals might rob, rape, beat and kill you without you being able to defend yourself.
So which gunlaw poses the greatest danger to a law-abiding citizen?
-
Actually "legally blind" is a matter of legislation and quite clear. The details may differ between your country and mine, but not significantly, as I understand it.
Being "liable" will not help if the damage is already done.
Let's see...in Iowa a few blind people might get guns. They might mistakenly shoot innocent people when firing the guns in self-defence. In Sweden you are not allowed to carry a gun in self-defence at all, which means that an armed criminal or a criminal with a knife or just a physically stronger criminal or a number of criminals might rob, rape, beat and kill you without you being able to defend yourself.
So which gunlaw poses the greatest danger to a law-abiding citizen?
Easy lit. You shouldn't challenge people's religion too much. :LOL:
-
:yawn:
-
:yawn:
Yeah, work the shaft.
-
:yawn:
Yeah, work the shaft.
Yes, telling me to suck your dick isn't at all bullying. You are just a good guy, right?
-
:yawn:
Yeah, work the shaft.
Yes, telling me to suck your dick isn't at all bullying. You are just a good guy, right?
And mercilessly pursuing someone to challenge them with ambigious unbacked claims isn't at all bullying. You're the heroine of this story. Mhm.
-
Nothing wrong with heroin :autism:
-
Bleeehehehehe
-
I don't understand how your right to gun ownership is so encapsulating. Just the mere mention of any form of gun 'control' seems to spark a reaction like this.
Is it really the be all and end all of life? For people to exercise their right to bear arms. Even if they can't see?
I may be mistaken, but I get the idea that this dominates the brains of some American's a bit too much.
Perhaps I don't 'get it' because I live in a different part of the world. :dunno:
You actually are mistaken Bodie. I think yurop is a bit biased against us cowboys. See originally I was pointing out that Obama was pushing for hardcore gun control, trying to ban "assault" weapons, etc.
Then all of the sudden blind people can buy and use guns. I was making fun of that. Entertainingly enough, here comes a british socialist like Adam, spouting off anti-gun jargon, complete with "u r a terrorist", and "tanks an drones r too strong r u dumb?"
Yeah. See, recap: I was making fun of this legislation(give blind people guns), and a brainless anti gun nut takes that as an attack on their ideals. Ohhh the irony. :autism:
I was not having a go at you, I saw in your humour in your previous post. I was talking in general and to no one in particular. :thumbup:
-
I don't understand how your right to gun ownership is so encapsulating. Just the mere mention of any form of gun 'control' seems to spark a reaction like this.
Is it really the be all and end all of life? For people to exercise their right to bear arms. Even if they can't see?
I may be mistaken, but I get the idea that this dominates the brains of some American's a bit too much.
Perhaps I don't 'get it' because I live in a different part of the world. :dunno:
You actually are mistaken Bodie. I think yurop is a bit biased against us cowboys. See originally I was pointing out that Obama was pushing for hardcore gun control, trying to ban "assault" weapons, etc.
Then all of the sudden blind people can buy and use guns. I was making fun of that. Entertainingly enough, here comes a british socialist like Adam, spouting off anti-gun jargon, complete with "u r a terrorist", and "tanks an drones r too strong r u dumb?"
Yeah. See, recap: I was making fun of this legislation(give blind people guns), and a brainless anti gun nut takes that as an attack on their ideals. Ohhh the irony. :autism:
I was not having a go at you, I saw in your humour in your previous post. I was talking in general and to no one in particular. :thumbup:
Good. You've been one of the more sensible voices. Didn't want you to get the wrong idea. ;)
-
BTW: Here is the result of big government and socialist ideology.
Protesters rally outside White House after Obama's Syria speech (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aBSmX4nWYqw#)
Important point- most don't want this to happen, but wouldn't you know it? Its happening anyway. "Addresses the nation to discuss the fate of Syria."
-
I don't understand how your right to gun ownership is so encapsulating. Just the mere mention of any form of gun 'control' seems to spark a reaction like this.
Is it really the be all and end all of life? For people to exercise their right to bear arms. Even if they can't see?
I may be mistaken, but I get the idea that this dominates the brains of some American's a bit too much.
Perhaps I don't 'get it' because I live in a different part of the world. :dunno:
I for my part never understood why not all people had the American view on guns, no matter their own gunlaws. How can you not think that owning a gun for self-defence is a right? It has puzzled me since I was 5 years old and my dad told me how hard it was to legally get a gun in Sweden vs. America.
I suppose I used to too. I love gun's. Used one in the army (although spent more time polishing and cleaning the mofo than firing it)
When I first moved into this house alone (before the urchin) i paid a lot of money for a Beretta pistol. I was scared (Birmingham is twinned with scumsville) and had been burgled at my previous address. I came home to find them still upstairs ransacking my knickers drawer. Hence the reason i got the pistol.
I rarely talk about it, and don't brag about it because it is gone. One night while I was asleep on my sofa someone came through my patio door (ok ok it wasn't locked) and took the fucker from my hand. While I slept.
Despite this, I still kept my views about owning a gun and that didn't change until I became a mom and this coincided with several 'massacre' incidents in the US involving children. This made me believe that children have a right to grow up free from fear of being gunned down in their playground and that their right to do this supersedes anyone else's right to own a gun. I know it is not that simple. I can conveniently make it simple living in England. :tard:
I ask you this with as much respect as possible... (seriously, no attempt at trolling)
Do you believe that another's rights end where your feelings begin?
Do you side with safety or freedom?
What if someone wanted to take away coffee because a child had a caffeine overdose? Would you have the same opinion?
What if someone wanted to take away cars because a child was hit by one? Would you have the same opinion?
-
Here's the thing. The problem with a legally blind person (who may be able to see but just not read road signs) having a gun is they can't shoot straight enough for it to be safe, yes?
But a gun is not inherently safe. It's a lethal weapon for fuck's sake. Trying to make gun use "safe" is like trying to fly a plane without tilting it. Sure, it feels better to the central nervous system of people who are afraid of flying. But you're not going to get off the ground.
People are required to go to classes for gun safety in some places. Should they also be required to pass a marksmanship test and if so, how strict should the standards be? Because if you don't require a marksmanship test for every gun owner, I don't see how you can specifically forbid legally blind people. What about people with arthritis? With any number of conditions that can cause the hand to shake? What about the fact that under stress, marksmanship goes through the floor anyway?
-
Here's the thing. The problem with a legally blind person (who may be able to see but just not read road signs) having a gun is they can't shoot straight enough for it to be safe, yes?
But a gun is not inherently safe. It's a lethal weapon for fuck's sake. Trying to make gun use "safe" is like trying to fly a plane without tilting it. Sure, it feels better to the central nervous system of people who are afraid of flying. But you're not going to get off the ground.
People are required to go to classes for gun safety in some places. Should they also be required to pass a marksmanship test and if so, how strict should the standards be? Because if you don't require a marksmanship test for every gun owner, I don't see how you can specifically forbid legally blind people. What about people with arthritis? With any number of conditions that can cause the hand to shake? What about the fact that under stress, marksmanship goes through the floor anyway?
People are required to go to classes for gun safety in some places. Should they also be required to pass a marksmanship test and if so, how strict should the standards be?
Now that's the kind of gun control I can get behind. Promoting individual responsibility, instead of trying to impose an individual's (or small group of individuals') ideologies on an entire people. I wholeheartedly agree. HEAR HEAR.
how strict should the standards be?
That's what makes this an icky solution to most, Pyraxis. You're asking questions here that could actually lead to solving these problems. That takes work. Americans don't like work. They would much rather some political figure offer some half assed temporary patches with agendas cleverly hidden within to them. That way they don't have to use their tiny little brains. I will be the asshole I always am (haha), and jump at the chance to offer my viewpoint. I think that perhaps the safety course and rifle/pistol qualification taught by the army would be sufficient in teaching people how to responsibly handle firearms.
Because if you don't require a marksmanship test for every gun owner, I don't see how you can specifically forbid legally blind people. What about people with arthritis? With any number of conditions that can cause the hand to shake? What about the fact that under stress, marksmanship goes through the floor anyway?
FUCK! Exactly! If we're going to make a whole bunch of fucking laws, why not one that serves a purpose? Making it a requirement to prove one can handle a firearm instantly makes this "legally blind", or whatever other shit a non-issue! It takes the professional victimism out of the equation and puts everyone on an equal playing field.
:plus: :indeed:
-
I don't understand how your right to gun ownership is so encapsulating. Just the mere mention of any form of gun 'control' seems to spark a reaction like this.
Is it really the be all and end all of life? For people to exercise their right to bear arms. Even if they can't see?
I may be mistaken, but I get the idea that this dominates the brains of some American's a bit too much.
Perhaps I don't 'get it' because I live in a different part of the world. :dunno:
I for my part never understood why not all people had the American view on guns, no matter their own gunlaws. How can you not think that owning a gun for self-defence is a right? It has puzzled me since I was 5 years old and my dad told me how hard it was to legally get a gun in Sweden vs. America.
I suppose I used to too. I love gun's. Used one in the army (although spent more time polishing and cleaning the mofo than firing it)
When I first moved into this house alone (before the urchin) i paid a lot of money for a Beretta pistol. I was scared (Birmingham is twinned with scumsville) and had been burgled at my previous address. I came home to find them still upstairs ransacking my knickers drawer. Hence the reason i got the pistol.
I rarely talk about it, and don't brag about it because it is gone. One night while I was asleep on my sofa someone came through my patio door (ok ok it wasn't locked) and took the fucker from my hand. While I slept.
Despite this, I still kept my views about owning a gun and that didn't change until I became a mom and this coincided with several 'massacre' incidents in the US involving children. This made me believe that children have a right to grow up free from fear of being gunned down in their playground and that their right to do this supersedes anyone else's right to own a gun. I know it is not that simple. I can conveniently make it simple living in England. :tard:
It's not that simple.
The other part of this is that not all legally blind people are the same. It's convenient to think that the blind just see a field of black, but the reality is that there are many different types of blindness, and I don't think it's right to judge anyone's ability to operate a firearm on such a broad standard as "blindness". Also, note that blind people are just as liable for what they do with their guns as sighted people are.
Actually "legally blind" is a matter of legislation and quite clear. The details may differ between your country and mine, but not significantly, as I understand it.
Being "liable" will not help if the damage is already done.
"Clear" and "broad" are two different concepts.
Indeed, but that is completely beside the point. Legally blind, in the eyes of the state, defines when your eyesight is bad enough to warrant help and extra services. I promise you, there is no state in the Western world that ever gets accused of too broad a definition when it comes to anything that might cost them.
-
Actually "legally blind" is a matter of legislation and quite clear. The details may differ between your country and mine, but not significantly, as I understand it.
Being "liable" will not help if the damage is already done.
Let's see...in Iowa a few blind people might get guns. They might mistakenly shoot innocent people when firing the guns in self-defence. In Sweden you are not allowed to carry a gun in self-defence at all, which means that an armed criminal or a criminal with a knife or just a physically stronger criminal or a number of criminals might rob, rape, beat and kill you without you being able to defend yourself.
So which gunlaw poses the greatest danger to a law-abiding citizen?
Statistically? Accidental shootings involving firearms in the home.
Let's allow them to be fighter pilots, too. Plenty of visually impaired people out there should be allowed to realise their dreams, ffs.
-
Actually "legally blind" is a matter of legislation and quite clear. The details may differ between your country and mine, but not significantly, as I understand it.
Being "liable" will not help if the damage is already done.
Let's see...in Iowa a few blind people might get guns. They might mistakenly shoot innocent people when firing the guns in self-defence. In Sweden you are not allowed to carry a gun in self-defence at all, which means that an armed criminal or a criminal with a knife or just a physically stronger criminal or a number of criminals might rob, rape, beat and kill you without you being able to defend yourself.
So which gunlaw poses the greatest danger to a law-abiding citizen?
Statistically? Accidental shootings involving firearms in the home.
Counting accidents with guns is dishonest. It is like counting accidents with cars as cases where people are hit by cars on purpose.
And gunlaws are still not to protect you from other citizens, they are to protect the state from you.
Let's allow them to be fighter pilots, too. Plenty of visually impaired people out there should be allowed to realise their dreams, ffs.
:agreed: :indeed:
-
I don't understand how your right to gun ownership is so encapsulating. Just the mere mention of any form of gun 'control' seems to spark a reaction like this.
Is it really the be all and end all of life? For people to exercise their right to bear arms. Even if they can't see?
I may be mistaken, but I get the idea that this dominates the brains of some American's a bit too much.
Perhaps I don't 'get it' because I live in a different part of the world. :dunno:
I for my part never understood why not all people had the American view on guns, no matter their own gunlaws. How can you not think that owning a gun for self-defence is a right? It has puzzled me since I was 5 years old and my dad told me how hard it was to legally get a gun in Sweden vs. America.
I suppose I used to too. I love gun's. Used one in the army (although spent more time polishing and cleaning the mofo than firing it)
When I first moved into this house alone (before the urchin) i paid a lot of money for a Beretta pistol. I was scared (Birmingham is twinned with scumsville) and had been burgled at my previous address. I came home to find them still upstairs ransacking my knickers drawer. Hence the reason i got the pistol.
I rarely talk about it, and don't brag about it because it is gone. One night while I was asleep on my sofa someone came through my patio door (ok ok it wasn't locked) and took the fucker from my hand. While I slept.
Despite this, I still kept my views about owning a gun and that didn't change until I became a mom and this coincided with several 'massacre' incidents in the US involving children. This made me believe that children have a right to grow up free from fear of being gunned down in their playground and that their right to do this supersedes anyone else's right to own a gun. I know it is not that simple. I can conveniently make it simple living in England. :tard:
I ask you this with as much respect as possible... (seriously, no attempt at trolling)
Do you believe that another's rights end where your feelings begin?
Do you side with safety or freedom?
What if someone wanted to take away coffee because a child had a caffeine overdose? Would you have the same opinion?
What if someone wanted to take away cars because a child was hit by one? Would you have the same opinion?
I can't muster the minimal amount of energy required to answer your caffeine and car question. I think my sarcasm would confuse you too much.
FWIW I really couldn't give two shits and a fuck if you have guns. Stories of people shooting each other in America cause me little or no reaction. Gangs, police, burglars - I am indifferent. I wouldn't bother to comment if it was limited to these groups.
It isn't, though, is it?
I can't speak for the world and his wife but I tend to take notice when kids are massacred. Call me crazy, but those tiny white coffins bother the hell out of me.
I don't have the solution. Maybe some of the things suggested might not work. Fucking try? JUST TRY MAKING IT A LITTLE BIT HARDER FOR NUTTERS TO GET HOLD OF THESE WEAPONS!
Do nothing and the past will keep repeating. Any potential nutjob in the making already knows how to go out with a bang. They know already who to target to make 'world' news?
Or just don't bother. Keep your kids as sitting ducks. Then whine again about your rights every time it happens. If it hasn't already, it will soon become less shocking. Hurt less. You could even extend your 'rights for all' to kids themselves! Opportunity knocks for someone to design a nice lightweight weapon to fit in a school satchel.
My answer to you is about as respectful as your questions to me. Still happy to talk to Rage or Lit who have not asked silly questions.
-
I don't understand how your right to gun ownership is so encapsulating. Just the mere mention of any form of gun 'control' seems to spark a reaction like this.
Is it really the be all and end all of life? For people to exercise their right to bear arms. Even if they can't see?
I may be mistaken, but I get the idea that this dominates the brains of some American's a bit too much.
Perhaps I don't 'get it' because I live in a different part of the world. :dunno:
I for my part never understood why not all people had the American view on guns, no matter their own gunlaws. How can you not think that owning a gun for self-defence is a right? It has puzzled me since I was 5 years old and my dad told me how hard it was to legally get a gun in Sweden vs. America.
I suppose I used to too. I love gun's. Used one in the army (although spent more time polishing and cleaning the mofo than firing it)
When I first moved into this house alone (before the urchin) i paid a lot of money for a Beretta pistol. I was scared (Birmingham is twinned with scumsville) and had been burgled at my previous address. I came home to find them still upstairs ransacking my knickers drawer. Hence the reason i got the pistol.
I rarely talk about it, and don't brag about it because it is gone. One night while I was asleep on my sofa someone came through my patio door (ok ok it wasn't locked) and took the fucker from my hand. While I slept.
Despite this, I still kept my views about owning a gun and that didn't change until I became a mom and this coincided with several 'massacre' incidents in the US involving children. This made me believe that children have a right to grow up free from fear of being gunned down in their playground and that their right to do this supersedes anyone else's right to own a gun. I know it is not that simple. I can conveniently make it simple living in England. :tard:
I ask you this with as much respect as possible... (seriously, no attempt at trolling)
Do you believe that another's rights end where your feelings begin?
Do you side with safety or freedom?
What if someone wanted to take away coffee because a child had a caffeine overdose? Would you have the same opinion?
What if someone wanted to take away cars because a child was hit by one? Would you have the same opinion?
I can't muster the minimal amount of energy required to answer your caffeine and car question. I think my sarcasm would confuse you too much.
FWIW I really couldn't give two shits and a fuck if you have guns. Stories of people shooting each other in America cause me little or no reaction. Gangs, police, burglars - I am indifferent. I wouldn't bother to comment if it was limited to these groups.
It isn't, though, is it?
I can't speak for the world and his wife but I tend to take notice when kids are massacred. Call me crazy, but those tiny white coffins bother the hell out of me.
I don't have the solution. Maybe some of the things suggested might not work. Fucking try? JUST TRY MAKING IT A LITTLE BIT HARDER FOR NUTTERS TO GET HOLD OF THESE WEAPONS!
Do nothing and the past will keep repeating. Any potential nutjob in the making already knows how to go out with a bang. They know already who to target to make 'world' news?
Or just don't bother. Keep your kids as sitting ducks. Then whine again about your rights every time it happens. If it hasn't already, it will soon become less shocking. Hurt less. You could even extend your 'rights for all' to kids themselves! Opportunity knocks for someone to design a nice lightweight weapon to fit in a school satchel.
My answer to you is about as respectful as your questions to me. Still happy to talk to Rage or Lit who have not asked silly questions.
A better solution is to treat the "nutters" before they shoot anyone. Rather than viewing them as evil, view them as sick. If you're looking to prevent school shootings, then take steps to prevent people from becoming school shooters. Stop bullying: 87% of school shooters were victims of bullying. Institute a system to allow for quick intervention if someone discusses a shooting. Fund more social workers in schools. These are all steps that could help. Ultimately, the problem isn't the guns; it's the people. Guns are just tools: they can be used for good or for evil, depending on the user.
If you think TA's trolling, even though he said otherwise, then believe so. However, I ask his question again: do you generally believe that it's better to be safe or to be free in areas where those values conflict? It seems like you have chosen safety over freedom. I would choose the opposite.
Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_shooting#School_bullying)
-
If I was a lone thinker, I would choose freedom over safety for myself. I am a mother and would choose safety for my child.
I have already explained how my viewpoint has changed. I don't even feel it was a choice. More instinct. I can't actually help it.
Now I have a kid to think about the whole damn sky could come crashing down and it would be cool as long as my kid was ok.
I am not even suggesting that everyone in America give up their arms. I was suggesting that a percentage put up a brick wall around the issue. Some not even willing to look at ideas to prevent these deaths. My suggestion is you should try.
Your bullying idea is worth further investigation.
-
Semicolon is right, but, like someone said on a Swedish board about this matter: the politicians don't do what's the most reasonable thing to do. They do what the majority thinks is right, which in this case is wrong, beacuse the majority in Europe is brainwashed by antigun propaganda.
There are shootings almost every week in Göteborg, the second largest city in Sweden. The shooters are in principle 100% immigrants with illegal guns. What do the dumbfuck politicians suggest should be done about it? More restrictions on legal guns! :facepalm2: :facepalm2: :facepalm2:
-
So I think the key issue here is CRIME CONTROL. Not gun control. Right?
-
So I think the key issue here is CRIME CONTROL. Not gun control. Right?
:agreed:
-
Any other solution proposals? Pyraxis asked some valid questions, which lead to me saying that anyone who wants a gun should be trained to use it by military cadre.
Anything more to add?
-
So I think the key issue here is CRIME CONTROL. Not gun control. Right?
:agreed:
:agreed:
-
Any other solution proposals? Pyraxis asked some valid questions, which lead to me saying that anyone who wants a gun should be trained to use it by military cadre.
Anything more to add?
Just wanted to add a little bonus to this. Usually one would use deadly force against a fellow human being when they feel their lives or the lives of their loved ones are in danger, right? Would it not be a plus if everyone packing was actually good at using a gun? I mean think about it, psycho shows up with a rifle, intends to kill a bunch of people. PROBLEM: About seven folks in there are packing, and were expertly trained by military cadre on a range in a classic setting.
Does the psycho or criminal stand much of a chance? Does this person stand more of a chance if nobody was armed, or the people that are have no idea what they are doing?
Just a thought. ;)
-
The psycho gets taken out before he does a load of damage - yes i like that!
But, what if no one capable is there? :dunno:
Training is a good idea though. Perhaps a psycho could be spotted also, during the procedure.
-
The psycho gets taken out before he does a load of damage - yes i like that!
But, what if no one capable is there? :dunno:
Training is a good idea though. Perhaps a psycho could be spotted also, during the procedure.
Yes, good point. Not just gun safety, but safety in general. Make individuals responsible for their own security instead of forcing everyone but government officials to be "dependent".
Envision a bank. A thief comes in with a gun. Like seven people are armed with pistols. The thief proceeds to rob the bank, and shoots the clerk in the head. Everyone stands around with a pistol in their hand, picking their asses with the other.
Someone is startled when the thief kills the cashier and flinches, accidentally pulling the trigger of their own pistol and shooting themselves in the foot. Everyone else reacts blindly shooting at everything that moves. The thief begins skillfully shooting everyone in the bank to save their own life. People die.
Indeed. There is a fundamental problem with big government, and placid citizens.
-
Read a history book, man.
I have a history diploma and have read literally hundreds of history books, but thanks for the suggestion
-
Read a history book, man.
I have a history diploma and have read literally hundreds of history books, but thanks for the suggestion
Could have fooled me. You're welcome. :green:
I don't want to push too hard here, but you could really say something like, "Ok dude, I was wrong. Thanks for teaching me about that." So I know that perhaps an understanding has been reached, and the debate was successful.
Alternatively, you could still have an opposing view. In which case you could say, "I disagree Rage, and let me tell you why...", then go on to explain why my viewpoint is incorrect.
Just a suggestion.
-
In other news, the earth wants to inact legislation from the milky way to enable hoodlum rogue elements out in space otherwise known as asteroids, to please get a life. hitting innocent planetary bodies without the right documentation is, well. a scandal
-
In other news, the earth wants to inact legislation from the milky way to enable hoodlum rogue elements out in space otherwise known as asteroids, to please get a life. hitting innocent planetary bodies without the right documentation is, well. a scandal
Loled. But there is a problem. I'm being overly critical, I know. But think about this, okay? I obviously see the satirical comparison on unfeeling asteroids to unfeeling psychopaths, but I think one may be a little more easy to control than the other, don't you?
-
In other news, the earth wants to inact legislation from the milky way to enable hoodlum rogue elements out in space otherwise known as asteroids, to please get a life. hitting innocent planetary bodies without the right documentation is, well. a scandal
Loled. But there is a problem. I'm being overly critical, I know. But think about this, okay? I obviously see the satirical comparison on unfeeling asteroids to unfeeling psychopaths, but I think one may be a little more easy to control than the other, don't you?
Its all good. I understand hyperfocusing, I do it quite often myself, What I guess I'm trying to do now is unworry myself. I cannot help people, you cant figure everyone out although you may try. some people like being sociopathic-psycopaths I thought? I dunno, I thought they were fully aware of their actions? and just don't care. Anyways, not trying to tell you how to be Rage I enjoy reading your posts. so carry on as you may
-
I'm not mad or anything. I just saw what I felt to be a short circuit in reasoning there, and felt the need to point at it and say, "Hey dude, that might be a problem later."
you cant figure everyone out although you may try. some people like being sociopathic-psycopaths I thought? I dunno, I thought they were fully aware of their actions? and just don't care.
True enough. But check it out- asteroids are probably harder to figure out and eliminate than buffalo bill, right? They don't care, that's true. Or they wouldn't nonchalantly stroll into a school and murder children, but they do bleed red like the rest of us, and they can be more easily physically overpowered than an asteroid. That's all I was trying to say. I did think your comparison was funny.
On that note, how about more research into the causes and identifying factors of mass shootings and gun violence instead of throwing as many guns into a smelting pot as we can? Can anyone dig that logic?
-
I think what you are trying to get at, is this. It all starts in the home, have a stable normal family and people usually don't have weird personality disorders, and underlying mental health issues later on in life. while I'm not saying its a cure all a lot of these people are just in some pain. and take it out on everyone else
-
Actually "legally blind" is a matter of legislation and quite clear. The details may differ between your country and mine, but not significantly, as I understand it.
Being "liable" will not help if the damage is already done.
Let's see...in Iowa a few blind people might get guns. They might mistakenly shoot innocent people when firing the guns in self-defence. In Sweden you are not allowed to carry a gun in self-defence at all, which means that an armed criminal or a criminal with a knife or just a physically stronger criminal or a number of criminals might rob, rape, beat and kill you without you being able to defend yourself.
So which gunlaw poses the greatest danger to a law-abiding citizen?
Statistically? Accidental shootings involving firearms in the home.
Counting accidents with guns is dishonest. It is like counting accidents with cars as cases where people are hit by cars on purpose.
Really? How is a full frontal collision when texting instead of driving different from shooting your kid in the darkness of your home when said kid sneaks in after a night out?
And gunlaws are still not to protect you from other citizens, they are to protect the state from you.
Because otherwise the blind people of Iowa would be oppressed by their government? I'd like to say that your reasoning doesn't hold water but that would be a bit like saying that all you need is some DYI to repair the Titanic.
Let's allow them to be fighter pilots, too. Plenty of visually impaired people out there should be allowed to realise their dreams, ffs.
:agreed: :indeed:
And there's no reason why they shouldn't be allowed to drive trains. The bloody things are on RAILS, FFS.
-
I don't understand how your right to gun ownership is so encapsulating. Just the mere mention of any form of gun 'control' seems to spark a reaction like this.
Is it really the be all and end all of life? For people to exercise their right to bear arms. Even if they can't see?
I may be mistaken, but I get the idea that this dominates the brains of some American's a bit too much.
Perhaps I don't 'get it' because I live in a different part of the world. :dunno:
I for my part never understood why not all people had the American view on guns, no matter their own gunlaws. How can you not think that owning a gun for self-defence is a right? It has puzzled me since I was 5 years old and my dad told me how hard it was to legally get a gun in Sweden vs. America.
I suppose I used to too. I love gun's. Used one in the army (although spent more time polishing and cleaning the mofo than firing it)
When I first moved into this house alone (before the urchin) i paid a lot of money for a Beretta pistol. I was scared (Birmingham is twinned with scumsville) and had been burgled at my previous address. I came home to find them still upstairs ransacking my knickers drawer. Hence the reason i got the pistol.
I rarely talk about it, and don't brag about it because it is gone. One night while I was asleep on my sofa someone came through my patio door (ok ok it wasn't locked) and took the fucker from my hand. While I slept.
Despite this, I still kept my views about owning a gun and that didn't change until I became a mom and this coincided with several 'massacre' incidents in the US involving children. This made me believe that children have a right to grow up free from fear of being gunned down in their playground and that their right to do this supersedes anyone else's right to own a gun. I know it is not that simple. I can conveniently make it simple living in England. :tard:
I ask you this with as much respect as possible... (seriously, no attempt at trolling)
Do you believe that another's rights end where your feelings begin?
Do you side with safety or freedom?
What if someone wanted to take away coffee because a child had a caffeine overdose? Would you have the same opinion?
What if someone wanted to take away cars because a child was hit by one? Would you have the same opinion?
I can't muster the minimal amount of energy required to answer your caffeine and car question. I think my sarcasm would confuse you too much.
FWIW I really couldn't give two shits and a fuck if you have guns. Stories of people shooting each other in America cause me little or no reaction. Gangs, police, burglars - I am indifferent. I wouldn't bother to comment if it was limited to these groups.
It isn't, though, is it?
I can't speak for the world and his wife but I tend to take notice when kids are massacred. Call me crazy, but those tiny white coffins bother the hell out of me.
I don't have the solution. Maybe some of the things suggested might not work. Fucking try? JUST TRY MAKING IT A LITTLE BIT HARDER FOR NUTTERS TO GET HOLD OF THESE WEAPONS!
Do nothing and the past will keep repeating. Any potential nutjob in the making already knows how to go out with a bang. They know already who to target to make 'world' news?
Or just don't bother. Keep your kids as sitting ducks. Then whine again about your rights every time it happens. If it hasn't already, it will soon become less shocking. Hurt less. You could even extend your 'rights for all' to kids themselves! Opportunity knocks for someone to design a nice lightweight weapon to fit in a school satchel.
My answer to you is about as respectful as your questions to me. Still happy to talk to Rage or Lit who have not asked silly questions.
A better solution is to treat the "nutters" before they shoot anyone. Rather than viewing them as evil, view them as sick. If you're looking to prevent school shootings, then take steps to prevent people from becoming school shooters. Stop bullying: 87% of school shooters were victims of bullying. Institute a system to allow for quick intervention if someone discusses a shooting. Fund more social workers in schools. These are all steps that could help. Ultimately, the problem isn't the guns; it's the people. Guns are just tools: they can be used for good or for evil, depending on the user.
If you think TA's trolling, even though he said otherwise, then believe so. However, I ask his question again: do you generally believe that it's better to be safe or to be free in areas where those values conflict? It seems like you have chosen safety over freedom. I would choose the opposite.
Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_shooting#School_bullying)
How would you find them? How would you spot the loner who might bring his dad's gun to school one day but leave be the other loner who is, I dunno, a spazz, like you and me? And if the former said "no, I promise, I won't shoot anyone, never even entertained the idea", would you bring him in by force?
And how would that be supporting your notion of personal freedom?
You seem like a rational person, Semi, rational and reasonable, but I sense the opposite when discussing guns.
Guns are not about freedom, basically. They have nothing to do with it other than on the surface, they are tools that can be used for just the opposite. In fact, they are more often used for just the opposite, in spite of what your 18th century principles would suggest.
But the question here is why the fuck anyone in their right mind would think it's OK to give a gun to someone legally blind, shrug and say that they are just as liable as anyone else?
You talk about prevention in one case but reject the idea in another.
-
Semicolon is right, but, like someone said on a Swedish board about this matter: the politicians don't do what's the most reasonable thing to do. They do what the majority thinks is right, which in this case is wrong, beacuse the majority in Europe is brainwashed by antigun propaganda.
There are shootings almost every week in Göteborg, the second largest city in Sweden. The shooters are in principle 100% immigrants with illegal guns. What do the dumbfuck politicians suggest should be done about it? More restrictions on legal guns! :facepalm2: :facepalm2: :facepalm2:
That's a bit dishonest of you, Lit, as I assume you've read the papers or followed the news. I have yet to spot a single instance of a politician suggesting gun control in connection with the latest shootings. I have seen several discuss the matter of segregation, discussing witness protection and such, however.
-
So I think the key issue here is CRIME CONTROL. Not gun control. Right?
Read my reply instead of using Lit's comment to support your tangent. This is how hyperbole happens.
-
Any other solution proposals? Pyraxis asked some valid questions, which lead to me saying that anyone who wants a gun should be trained to use it by military cadre.
Anything more to add?
Yes. Don't allow someone legally blind to carry a gun. If that is limiting their rights, then so be it.
-
The psycho gets taken out before he does a load of damage - yes i like that!
But, what if no one capable is there? :dunno:
Training is a good idea though. Perhaps a psycho could be spotted also, during the procedure.
The problem with psychos is to spot them.
It seems to me that very often, people who knew the shooter say how *normal* they seemed to be. Normal and loved and incapable of harming anyone. After the fact.
That's about when the media reveal the shooter was diagnosed with a mental illness such as AS.
Yes, spotting and helping and preventing is a good idea, and I fully support it. But I don't think it's the magic bullet. Pun intended.
-
In other news, the earth wants to inact legislation from the milky way to enable hoodlum rogue elements out in space otherwise known as asteroids, to please get a life. hitting innocent planetary bodies without the right documentation is, well. a scandal
Loled. But there is a problem. I'm being overly critical, I know. But think about this, okay? I obviously see the satirical comparison on unfeeling asteroids to unfeeling psychopaths, but I think one may be a little more easy to control than the other, don't you?
Which one?
Serious question, BTW.
-
I'm not mad or anything. I just saw what I felt to be a short circuit in reasoning there, and felt the need to point at it and say, "Hey dude, that might be a problem later."
you cant figure everyone out although you may try. some people like being sociopathic-psycopaths I thought? I dunno, I thought they were fully aware of their actions? and just don't care.
True enough. But check it out- asteroids are probably harder to figure out and eliminate than buffalo bill, right? They don't care, that's true. Or they wouldn't nonchalantly stroll into a school and murder children, but they do bleed red like the rest of us, and they can be more easily physically overpowered than an asteroid. That's all I was trying to say. I did think your comparison was funny.
On that note, how about more research into the causes and identifying factors of mass shootings and gun violence instead of throwing as many guns into a smelting pot as we can? Can anyone dig that logic?
http://www.salon.com/2012/07/25/the_nras_war_on_gun_science/ (http://www.salon.com/2012/07/25/the_nras_war_on_gun_science/)
-
I don't understand how your right to gun ownership is so encapsulating. Just the mere mention of any form of gun 'control' seems to spark a reaction like this.
Is it really the be all and end all of life? For people to exercise their right to bear arms. Even if they can't see?
I may be mistaken, but I get the idea that this dominates the brains of some American's a bit too much.
Perhaps I don't 'get it' because I live in a different part of the world. :dunno:
I for my part never understood why not all people had the American view on guns, no matter their own gunlaws. How can you not think that owning a gun for self-defence is a right? It has puzzled me since I was 5 years old and my dad told me how hard it was to legally get a gun in Sweden vs. America.
I suppose I used to too. I love gun's. Used one in the army (although spent more time polishing and cleaning the mofo than firing it)
When I first moved into this house alone (before the urchin) i paid a lot of money for a Beretta pistol. I was scared (Birmingham is twinned with scumsville) and had been burgled at my previous address. I came home to find them still upstairs ransacking my knickers drawer. Hence the reason i got the pistol.
I rarely talk about it, and don't brag about it because it is gone. One night while I was asleep on my sofa someone came through my patio door (ok ok it wasn't locked) and took the fucker from my hand. While I slept.
Despite this, I still kept my views about owning a gun and that didn't change until I became a mom and this coincided with several 'massacre' incidents in the US involving children. This made me believe that children have a right to grow up free from fear of being gunned down in their playground and that their right to do this supersedes anyone else's right to own a gun. I know it is not that simple. I can conveniently make it simple living in England. :tard:
I ask you this with as much respect as possible... (seriously, no attempt at trolling)
Do you believe that another's rights end where your feelings begin?
Do you side with safety or freedom?
What if someone wanted to take away coffee because a child had a caffeine overdose? Would you have the same opinion?
What if someone wanted to take away cars because a child was hit by one? Would you have the same opinion?
I can't muster the minimal amount of energy required to answer your caffeine and car question. I think my sarcasm would confuse you too much.
FWIW I really couldn't give two shits and a fuck if you have guns. Stories of people shooting each other in America cause me little or no reaction. Gangs, police, burglars - I am indifferent. I wouldn't bother to comment if it was limited to these groups.
It isn't, though, is it?
I can't speak for the world and his wife but I tend to take notice when kids are massacred. Call me crazy, but those tiny white coffins bother the hell out of me.
I don't have the solution. Maybe some of the things suggested might not work. Fucking try? JUST TRY MAKING IT A LITTLE BIT HARDER FOR NUTTERS TO GET HOLD OF THESE WEAPONS!
Do nothing and the past will keep repeating. Any potential nutjob in the making already knows how to go out with a bang. They know already who to target to make 'world' news?
Or just don't bother. Keep your kids as sitting ducks. Then whine again about your rights every time it happens. If it hasn't already, it will soon become less shocking. Hurt less. You could even extend your 'rights for all' to kids themselves! Opportunity knocks for someone to design a nice lightweight weapon to fit in a school satchel.
My answer to you is about as respectful as your questions to me. Still happy to talk to Rage or Lit who have not asked silly questions.
A better solution is to treat the "nutters" before they shoot anyone. Rather than viewing them as evil, view them as sick. If you're looking to prevent school shootings, then take steps to prevent people from becoming school shooters. Stop bullying: 87% of school shooters were victims of bullying. Institute a system to allow for quick intervention if someone discusses a shooting. Fund more social workers in schools. These are all steps that could help. Ultimately, the problem isn't the guns; it's the people. Guns are just tools: they can be used for good or for evil, depending on the user.
If you think TA's trolling, even though he said otherwise, then believe so. However, I ask his question again: do you generally believe that it's better to be safe or to be free in areas where those values conflict? It seems like you have chosen safety over freedom. I would choose the opposite.
Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_shooting#School_bullying)
How would you find them? How would you spot the loner who might bring his dad's gun to school one day but leave be the other loner who is, I dunno, a spazz, like you and me? And if the former said "no, I promise, I won't shoot anyone, never even entertained the idea", would you bring him in by force?
And how would that be supporting your notion of personal freedom?
Your logic is faulty, Odeon. Although it seems to work, you can't work backwards from who is destined to be a school shooter. People have free will, and they control their own destinies. It's a matter of probabilities and warning signs. As for the actual process, here are two (http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/school-shooter) links (http://www.psychceu.com/school_violence/schoolviolence_course.asp) that outline the general principles.
You seem like a rational person, Semi, rational and reasonable, but I sense the opposite when discussing guns.
Guns are not about freedom, basically. They have nothing to do with it other than on the surface, they are tools that can be used for just the opposite. In fact, they are more often used for just the opposite, in spite of what your 18th century principles would suggest.
A gun is a tool in the sense that a screwdriver is a tool. I already said that. Whether it is used for good or evil depends on the user.
But the question here is why the fuck anyone in their right mind would think it's OK to give a gun to someone legally blind, shrug and say that they are just as liable as anyone else?
You talk about prevention in one case but reject the idea in another.
I don't see any contradiction. Responsible gun ownership is a matter of individual capability. You keep posting bare assertions instead of backing yourself up, as if we're all supposed to accept without proof that no legally blind people is capable of using a gun. There are many types of blind. Do you think that all blind people see nothing except a cloud of black?
Rather than letting stereotypes of the blind rule the discussion, let's have some evidence. Here is a series of pictures that depict the US definition of "legally blind". Look especially at the last one. Would you argue that an individual with that impairment couldn't go to a shooting range and safely blast a few holes in a paper target?
(http://theamazingeye.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/river_orig_1.jpg?w=450)
(http://theamazingeye.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/river_20_200.jpg?w=450)
(http://theamazingeye.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/river_peripheral_1.jpg?w=450)
-
Because otherwise the blind people of Iowa would be oppressed by their government? I'd like to say that your reasoning doesn't hold water but that would be a bit like saying that all you need is some DYI to repair the Titanic.
Well, in Iowa they obviously think so :orly:
-
Semicolon is right, but, like someone said on a Swedish board about this matter: the politicians don't do what's the most reasonable thing to do. They do what the majority thinks is right, which in this case is wrong, beacuse the majority in Europe is brainwashed by antigun propaganda.
There are shootings almost every week in Göteborg, the second largest city in Sweden. The shooters are in principle 100% immigrants with illegal guns. What do the dumbfuck politicians suggest should be done about it? More restrictions on legal guns! :facepalm2: :facepalm2: :facepalm2:
That's a bit dishonest of you, Lit, as I assume you've read the papers or followed the news. I have yet to spot a single instance of a politician suggesting gun control in connection with the latest shootings. I have seen several discuss the matter of segregation, discussing witness protection and such, however.
It was a bit opaque what that woman really meant.
But there was a new suggestion recently about more infringements on gun ownership. In America they go the other way, which is a luck, since all other things in America seem to be totally wrong these days.
-
---
Guns are not about freedom, basically. They have nothing to do with it other than on the surface, they are tools that can be used for just the opposite. In fact, they are more often used for just the opposite, in spite of what your 18th century principles would suggest.
---
So you can't shoot an oppressor with a gun anymore? Why? And you can't defend yourself against a criminal with it? And I don't mean because of laws that are to the disadvantage of the law-abiding like the idiotic gunlaw and law about self-defence here, I mean physically. Have the laws of nature changed since the 18th century?
-
That ex military guy told me some things about the war in Bosnia. They had quite another view on your right to defend yourself and your property there. Those who were the victims were mainly those who believed that the state would protect them.
-
In other news, the earth wants to inact legislation from the milky way to enable hoodlum rogue elements out in space otherwise known as asteroids, to please get a life. hitting innocent planetary bodies without the right documentation is, well. a scandal
Loled. But there is a problem. I'm being overly critical, I know. But think about this, okay? I obviously see the satirical comparison on unfeeling asteroids to unfeeling psychopaths, but I think one may be a little more easy to control than the other, don't you?
Which one?
Serious question, BTW.
Flesh and blood psychos.
-
I don't understand how your right to gun ownership is so encapsulating. Just the mere mention of any form of gun 'control' seems to spark a reaction like this.
Is it really the be all and end all of life? For people to exercise their right to bear arms. Even if they can't see?
I may be mistaken, but I get the idea that this dominates the brains of some American's a bit too much.
Perhaps I don't 'get it' because I live in a different part of the world. :dunno:
I for my part never understood why not all people had the American view on guns, no matter their own gunlaws. How can you not think that owning a gun for self-defence is a right? It has puzzled me since I was 5 years old and my dad told me how hard it was to legally get a gun in Sweden vs. America.
I suppose I used to too. I love gun's. Used one in the army (although spent more time polishing and cleaning the mofo than firing it)
When I first moved into this house alone (before the urchin) i paid a lot of money for a Beretta pistol. I was scared (Birmingham is twinned with scumsville) and had been burgled at my previous address. I came home to find them still upstairs ransacking my knickers drawer. Hence the reason i got the pistol.
I rarely talk about it, and don't brag about it because it is gone. One night while I was asleep on my sofa someone came through my patio door (ok ok it wasn't locked) and took the fucker from my hand. While I slept.
Despite this, I still kept my views about owning a gun and that didn't change until I became a mom and this coincided with several 'massacre' incidents in the US involving children. This made me believe that children have a right to grow up free from fear of being gunned down in their playground and that their right to do this supersedes anyone else's right to own a gun. I know it is not that simple. I can conveniently make it simple living in England. :tard:
I ask you this with as much respect as possible... (seriously, no attempt at trolling)
Do you believe that another's rights end where your feelings begin?
Do you side with safety or freedom?
What if someone wanted to take away coffee because a child had a caffeine overdose? Would you have the same opinion?
What if someone wanted to take away cars because a child was hit by one? Would you have the same opinion?
I can't muster the minimal amount of energy required to answer your caffeine and car question. I think my sarcasm would confuse you too much.
FWIW I really couldn't give two shits and a fuck if you have guns. Stories of people shooting each other in America cause me little or no reaction. Gangs, police, burglars - I am indifferent. I wouldn't bother to comment if it was limited to these groups.
It isn't, though, is it?
I can't speak for the world and his wife but I tend to take notice when kids are massacred. Call me crazy, but those tiny white coffins bother the hell out of me.
I don't have the solution. Maybe some of the things suggested might not work. Fucking try? JUST TRY MAKING IT A LITTLE BIT HARDER FOR NUTTERS TO GET HOLD OF THESE WEAPONS!
Do nothing and the past will keep repeating. Any potential nutjob in the making already knows how to go out with a bang. They know already who to target to make 'world' news?
Or just don't bother. Keep your kids as sitting ducks. Then whine again about your rights every time it happens. If it hasn't already, it will soon become less shocking. Hurt less. You could even extend your 'rights for all' to kids themselves! Opportunity knocks for someone to design a nice lightweight weapon to fit in a school satchel.
My answer to you is about as respectful as your questions to me. Still happy to talk to Rage or Lit who have not asked silly questions.
A better solution is to treat the "nutters" before they shoot anyone. Rather than viewing them as evil, view them as sick. If you're looking to prevent school shootings, then take steps to prevent people from becoming school shooters. Stop bullying: 87% of school shooters were victims of bullying. Institute a system to allow for quick intervention if someone discusses a shooting. Fund more social workers in schools. These are all steps that could help. Ultimately, the problem isn't the guns; it's the people. Guns are just tools: they can be used for good or for evil, depending on the user.
If you think TA's trolling, even though he said otherwise, then believe so. However, I ask his question again: do you generally believe that it's better to be safe or to be free in areas where those values conflict? It seems like you have chosen safety over freedom. I would choose the opposite.
Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_shooting#School_bullying)
How would you find them? How would you spot the loner who might bring his dad's gun to school one day but leave be the other loner who is, I dunno, a spazz, like you and me? And if the former said "no, I promise, I won't shoot anyone, never even entertained the idea", would you bring him in by force?
And how would that be supporting your notion of personal freedom?
Your logic is faulty, Odeon. Although it seems to work, you can't work backwards from who is destined to be a school shooter. People have free will, and they control their own destinies. It's a matter of probabilities and warning signs. As for the actual process, here are two (http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/school-shooter) links (http://www.psychceu.com/school_violence/schoolviolence_course.asp) that outline the general principles.
You seem like a rational person, Semi, rational and reasonable, but I sense the opposite when discussing guns.
Guns are not about freedom, basically. They have nothing to do with it other than on the surface, they are tools that can be used for just the opposite. In fact, they are more often used for just the opposite, in spite of what your 18th century principles would suggest.
A gun is a tool in the sense that a screwdriver is a tool. I already said that. Whether it is used for good or evil depends on the user.
But the question here is why the fuck anyone in their right mind would think it's OK to give a gun to someone legally blind, shrug and say that they are just as liable as anyone else?
You talk about prevention in one case but reject the idea in another.
I don't see any contradiction. Responsible gun ownership is a matter of individual capability. You keep posting bare assertions instead of backing yourself up, as if we're all supposed to accept without proof that no legally blind people is capable of using a gun. There are many types of blind. Do you think that all blind people see nothing except a cloud of black?
Rather than letting stereotypes of the blind rule the discussion, let's have some evidence. Here is a series of pictures that depict the US definition of "legally blind". Look especially at the last one. Would you argue that an individual with that impairment couldn't go to a shooting range and safely blast a few holes in a paper target?
(http://theamazingeye.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/river_orig_1.jpg?w=450)
(http://theamazingeye.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/river_20_200.jpg?w=450)
(http://theamazingeye.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/river_peripheral_1.jpg?w=450)
Don't be so mean, semicolon. Feelings are more important than logic. And by the way, nobody actually shot down my proposal for military training for using a gun. Much like a driver's license, you could have a gun license which shows that you are capable of using a firearm correctly, saftley, and skillfully. To qualify with a rifle, i'm pretty sure you have to be able to use it and hit a target, so if you're too blind to do that, you fail and don't get your license?
Is something wrong with that suggestion, O-man?
-
I don't understand how your right to gun ownership is so encapsulating. Just the mere mention of any form of gun 'control' seems to spark a reaction like this.
Is it really the be all and end all of life? For people to exercise their right to bear arms. Even if they can't see?
I may be mistaken, but I get the idea that this dominates the brains of some American's a bit too much.
Perhaps I don't 'get it' because I live in a different part of the world. :dunno:
I for my part never understood why not all people had the American view on guns, no matter their own gunlaws. How can you not think that owning a gun for self-defence is a right? It has puzzled me since I was 5 years old and my dad told me how hard it was to legally get a gun in Sweden vs. America.
I suppose I used to too. I love gun's. Used one in the army (although spent more time polishing and cleaning the mofo than firing it)
When I first moved into this house alone (before the urchin) i paid a lot of money for a Beretta pistol. I was scared (Birmingham is twinned with scumsville) and had been burgled at my previous address. I came home to find them still upstairs ransacking my knickers drawer. Hence the reason i got the pistol.
I rarely talk about it, and don't brag about it because it is gone. One night while I was asleep on my sofa someone came through my patio door (ok ok it wasn't locked) and took the fucker from my hand. While I slept.
Despite this, I still kept my views about owning a gun and that didn't change until I became a mom and this coincided with several 'massacre' incidents in the US involving children. This made me believe that children have a right to grow up free from fear of being gunned down in their playground and that their right to do this supersedes anyone else's right to own a gun. I know it is not that simple. I can conveniently make it simple living in England. :tard:
I ask you this with as much respect as possible... (seriously, no attempt at trolling)
Do you believe that another's rights end where your feelings begin?
Do you side with safety or freedom?
What if someone wanted to take away coffee because a child had a caffeine overdose? Would you have the same opinion?
What if someone wanted to take away cars because a child was hit by one? Would you have the same opinion?
I can't muster the minimal amount of energy required to answer your caffeine and car question. I think my sarcasm would confuse you too much.
FWIW I really couldn't give two shits and a fuck if you have guns. Stories of people shooting each other in America cause me little or no reaction. Gangs, police, burglars - I am indifferent. I wouldn't bother to comment if it was limited to these groups.
It isn't, though, is it?
I can't speak for the world and his wife but I tend to take notice when kids are massacred. Call me crazy, but those tiny white coffins bother the hell out of me.
I don't have the solution. Maybe some of the things suggested might not work. Fucking try? JUST TRY MAKING IT A LITTLE BIT HARDER FOR NUTTERS TO GET HOLD OF THESE WEAPONS!
Do nothing and the past will keep repeating. Any potential nutjob in the making already knows how to go out with a bang. They know already who to target to make 'world' news?
Or just don't bother. Keep your kids as sitting ducks. Then whine again about your rights every time it happens. If it hasn't already, it will soon become less shocking. Hurt less. You could even extend your 'rights for all' to kids themselves! Opportunity knocks for someone to design a nice lightweight weapon to fit in a school satchel.
My answer to you is about as respectful as your questions to me. Still happy to talk to Rage or Lit who have not asked silly questions.
You honestly think I was asking you loaded questions and being disrespectful? Fine, I will engage you no further.
I still have the utmost respect for you, but good day to you madam.
-
I don't understand how your right to gun ownership is so encapsulating. Just the mere mention of any form of gun 'control' seems to spark a reaction like this.
Is it really the be all and end all of life? For people to exercise their right to bear arms. Even if they can't see?
I may be mistaken, but I get the idea that this dominates the brains of some American's a bit too much.
Perhaps I don't 'get it' because I live in a different part of the world. :dunno:
I for my part never understood why not all people had the American view on guns, no matter their own gunlaws. How can you not think that owning a gun for self-defence is a right? It has puzzled me since I was 5 years old and my dad told me how hard it was to legally get a gun in Sweden vs. America.
I suppose I used to too. I love gun's. Used one in the army (although spent more time polishing and cleaning the mofo than firing it)
When I first moved into this house alone (before the urchin) i paid a lot of money for a Beretta pistol. I was scared (Birmingham is twinned with scumsville) and had been burgled at my previous address. I came home to find them still upstairs ransacking my knickers drawer. Hence the reason i got the pistol.
I rarely talk about it, and don't brag about it because it is gone. One night while I was asleep on my sofa someone came through my patio door (ok ok it wasn't locked) and took the fucker from my hand. While I slept.
Despite this, I still kept my views about owning a gun and that didn't change until I became a mom and this coincided with several 'massacre' incidents in the US involving children. This made me believe that children have a right to grow up free from fear of being gunned down in their playground and that their right to do this supersedes anyone else's right to own a gun. I know it is not that simple. I can conveniently make it simple living in England. :tard:
I ask you this with as much respect as possible... (seriously, no attempt at trolling)
Do you believe that another's rights end where your feelings begin?
Do you side with safety or freedom?
What if someone wanted to take away coffee because a child had a caffeine overdose? Would you have the same opinion?
What if someone wanted to take away cars because a child was hit by one? Would you have the same opinion?
I can't muster the minimal amount of energy required to answer your caffeine and car question. I think my sarcasm would confuse you too much.
FWIW I really couldn't give two shits and a fuck if you have guns. Stories of people shooting each other in America cause me little or no reaction. Gangs, police, burglars - I am indifferent. I wouldn't bother to comment if it was limited to these groups.
It isn't, though, is it?
I can't speak for the world and his wife but I tend to take notice when kids are massacred. Call me crazy, but those tiny white coffins bother the hell out of me.
I don't have the solution. Maybe some of the things suggested might not work. Fucking try? JUST TRY MAKING IT A LITTLE BIT HARDER FOR NUTTERS TO GET HOLD OF THESE WEAPONS!
Do nothing and the past will keep repeating. Any potential nutjob in the making already knows how to go out with a bang. They know already who to target to make 'world' news?
Or just don't bother. Keep your kids as sitting ducks. Then whine again about your rights every time it happens. If it hasn't already, it will soon become less shocking. Hurt less. You could even extend your 'rights for all' to kids themselves! Opportunity knocks for someone to design a nice lightweight weapon to fit in a school satchel.
My answer to you is about as respectful as your questions to me. Still happy to talk to Rage or Lit who have not asked silly questions.
You honestly think I was asking you loaded questions and being disrespectful? Fine, I will engage you no further.
I still have the utmost respect for you, but good day to you madam.
I do apologise TA, I think I may have been wearing my stroppy drawers that day. :emosad: Sorry if i over reacted.
-
I don't understand how your right to gun ownership is so encapsulating. Just the mere mention of any form of gun 'control' seems to spark a reaction like this.
Is it really the be all and end all of life? For people to exercise their right to bear arms. Even if they can't see?
I may be mistaken, but I get the idea that this dominates the brains of some American's a bit too much.
Perhaps I don't 'get it' because I live in a different part of the world. :dunno:
I for my part never understood why not all people had the American view on guns, no matter their own gunlaws. How can you not think that owning a gun for self-defence is a right? It has puzzled me since I was 5 years old and my dad told me how hard it was to legally get a gun in Sweden vs. America.
I suppose I used to too. I love gun's. Used one in the army (although spent more time polishing and cleaning the mofo than firing it)
When I first moved into this house alone (before the urchin) i paid a lot of money for a Beretta pistol. I was scared (Birmingham is twinned with scumsville) and had been burgled at my previous address. I came home to find them still upstairs ransacking my knickers drawer. Hence the reason i got the pistol.
I rarely talk about it, and don't brag about it because it is gone. One night while I was asleep on my sofa someone came through my patio door (ok ok it wasn't locked) and took the fucker from my hand. While I slept.
Despite this, I still kept my views about owning a gun and that didn't change until I became a mom and this coincided with several 'massacre' incidents in the US involving children. This made me believe that children have a right to grow up free from fear of being gunned down in their playground and that their right to do this supersedes anyone else's right to own a gun. I know it is not that simple. I can conveniently make it simple living in England. :tard:
I ask you this with as much respect as possible... (seriously, no attempt at trolling)
Do you believe that another's rights end where your feelings begin?
Do you side with safety or freedom?
What if someone wanted to take away coffee because a child had a caffeine overdose? Would you have the same opinion?
What if someone wanted to take away cars because a child was hit by one? Would you have the same opinion?
I can't muster the minimal amount of energy required to answer your caffeine and car question. I think my sarcasm would confuse you too much.
FWIW I really couldn't give two shits and a fuck if you have guns. Stories of people shooting each other in America cause me little or no reaction. Gangs, police, burglars - I am indifferent. I wouldn't bother to comment if it was limited to these groups.
It isn't, though, is it?
I can't speak for the world and his wife but I tend to take notice when kids are massacred. Call me crazy, but those tiny white coffins bother the hell out of me.
I don't have the solution. Maybe some of the things suggested might not work. Fucking try? JUST TRY MAKING IT A LITTLE BIT HARDER FOR NUTTERS TO GET HOLD OF THESE WEAPONS!
Do nothing and the past will keep repeating. Any potential nutjob in the making already knows how to go out with a bang. They know already who to target to make 'world' news?
Or just don't bother. Keep your kids as sitting ducks. Then whine again about your rights every time it happens. If it hasn't already, it will soon become less shocking. Hurt less. You could even extend your 'rights for all' to kids themselves! Opportunity knocks for someone to design a nice lightweight weapon to fit in a school satchel.
My answer to you is about as respectful as your questions to me. Still happy to talk to Rage or Lit who have not asked silly questions.
A better solution is to treat the "nutters" before they shoot anyone. Rather than viewing them as evil, view them as sick. If you're looking to prevent school shootings, then take steps to prevent people from becoming school shooters. Stop bullying: 87% of school shooters were victims of bullying. Institute a system to allow for quick intervention if someone discusses a shooting. Fund more social workers in schools. These are all steps that could help. Ultimately, the problem isn't the guns; it's the people. Guns are just tools: they can be used for good or for evil, depending on the user.
If you think TA's trolling, even though he said otherwise, then believe so. However, I ask his question again: do you generally believe that it's better to be safe or to be free in areas where those values conflict? It seems like you have chosen safety over freedom. I would choose the opposite.
Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_shooting#School_bullying)
How would you find them? How would you spot the loner who might bring his dad's gun to school one day but leave be the other loner who is, I dunno, a spazz, like you and me? And if the former said "no, I promise, I won't shoot anyone, never even entertained the idea", would you bring him in by force?
And how would that be supporting your notion of personal freedom?
Your logic is faulty, Odeon. Although it seems to work, you can't work backwards from who is destined to be a school shooter. People have free will, and they control their own destinies. It's a matter of probabilities and warning signs. As for the actual process, here are two (http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/school-shooter) links (http://www.psychceu.com/school_violence/schoolviolence_course.asp) that outline the general principles.
How is my logic faulty? I asked how you'd spot the nutters you wanted to treat. I pointed out that it isn't a realistic option because you'd have to find them first.
Yes, quite a few of them were bullied but guess what: even more people were bullied but never went on to shoot anyone.
Call me crazy but I'd not limit myself to a single plan t prevent future shootings; I'd make sure to limit access, too. I know, it hurts your 'merican notions of freedom but that is a more fundamental difference between you and me than anything else here.
You seem like a rational person, Semi, rational and reasonable, but I sense the opposite when discussing guns.
Guns are not about freedom, basically. They have nothing to do with it other than on the surface, they are tools that can be used for just the opposite. In fact, they are more often used for just the opposite, in spite of what your 18th century principles would suggest.
A gun is a tool in the sense that a screwdriver is a tool. I already said that. Whether it is used for good or evil depends on the user.
Which is sort of what I said, above, but I do believe a comparison with a screwdriver is fundamentally flawed. Pretty sure most armies aren't equipped with screwdrivers.
But the question here is why the fuck anyone in their right mind would think it's OK to give a gun to someone legally blind, shrug and say that they are just as liable as anyone else?
You talk about prevention in one case but reject the idea in another.
I don't see any contradiction. Responsible gun ownership is a matter of individual capability. You keep posting bare assertions instead of backing yourself up, as if we're all supposed to accept without proof that no legally blind people is capable of using a gun. There are many types of blind. Do you think that all blind people see nothing except a cloud of black?
Rather than letting stereotypes of the blind rule the discussion, let's have some evidence. Here is a series of pictures that depict the US definition of "legally blind". Look especially at the last one. Would you argue that an individual with that impairment couldn't go to a shooting range and safely blast a few holes in a paper target?
(http://theamazingeye.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/river_orig_1.jpg?w=450)
(http://theamazingeye.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/river_20_200.jpg?w=450)
(http://theamazingeye.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/river_peripheral_1.jpg?w=450)
These image are approximations, created to give someone with normal vision *some* idea of the problems involved. A very simple addition would be to add how poor lighting conditions affect the vision, but even that would have to be simulated.
But if this was about a tool used at a shooting range, I probably would not protest too much. But that's not the case here, is it? Be honest.
-
---
Guns are not about freedom, basically. They have nothing to do with it other than on the surface, they are tools that can be used for just the opposite. In fact, they are more often used for just the opposite, in spite of what your 18th century principles would suggest.
---
So you can't shoot an oppressor with a gun anymore? Why? And you can't defend yourself against a criminal with it? And I don't mean because of laws that are to the disadvantage of the law-abiding like the idiotic gunlaw and law about self-defence here, I mean physically. Have the laws of nature changed since the 18th century?
???
Not sure what you're on about here.
You can, obviously. My comment about 18th century principles refers to the overthrowing a corrupt government with guns party line.
-
In other news, the earth wants to inact legislation from the milky way to enable hoodlum rogue elements out in space otherwise known as asteroids, to please get a life. hitting innocent planetary bodies without the right documentation is, well. a scandal
Loled. But there is a problem. I'm being overly critical, I know. But think about this, okay? I obviously see the satirical comparison on unfeeling asteroids to unfeeling psychopaths, but I think one may be a little more easy to control than the other, don't you?
Which one?
Serious question, BTW.
Flesh and blood psychos.
And how's that working out for you, so far? :zoinks:
-
Don't be so mean, semicolon. Feelings are more important than logic.
Feelings?
How is it not logical to suggest that a person with poor eyesight not be allowed to handle a gun in a state where a legal use is to defend yourself from intruders in your home? If anything, Semi is the one to appeal to feelings when confusing the matter with personal freedoms and other matters of personal bias.
And by the way, nobody actually shot down my proposal for military training for using a gun. Much like a driver's license, you could have a gun license which shows that you are capable of using a firearm correctly, saftley, and skillfully. To qualify with a rifle, i'm pretty sure you have to be able to use it and hit a target, so if you're too blind to do that, you fail and don't get your license?
Is something wrong with that suggestion, O-man?
No, it's a rational one. I would add realistic lighting conditions to the test, though.
-
---
Guns are not about freedom, basically. They have nothing to do with it other than on the surface, they are tools that can be used for just the opposite. In fact, they are more often used for just the opposite, in spite of what your 18th century principles would suggest.
---
So you can't shoot an oppressor with a gun anymore? Why? And you can't defend yourself against a criminal with it? And I don't mean because of laws that are to the disadvantage of the law-abiding like the idiotic gunlaw and law about self-defence here, I mean physically. Have the laws of nature changed since the 18th century?
???
Not sure what you're on about here.
You can, obviously. My comment about 18th century principles refers to the overthrowing a corrupt government with guns party line.
You can shoot the government, just like you could 200 years ago. It's a bit more difficult since they have bodyguards etc, but on the other side the rifles are much superior today.
-
I don't really understand when you say "shoot the government"
I get the self defence reason. You know shooting a burglar, or protecting your family.
The Police. Yeah I get this too to some degree. I find police to be corrupt too. If the police crazies have guns then can see why you'd want one too.
The Government - I am lost here. Why would you need guns? Do you mean the army. When/where/why would the US government attack it's own people?
-
The idea with the 2nd Amendment is that the people of the US should be able to overthrow a corrupt government.
The government is of course not attacking the population in person but using the military. You can't defeat the US military directly, so the alternative is to go for the government directly.
-
It seems quite bizarre in a place where government are voted in by the people.
-
It seems quite bizarre in a place where government are voted in by the people.
Yes.
The original thought was probably either that a government that was voted in would become totally dictatorial or that someone took over by force.
-
And you think you could overthrow the government with your rifles?
When they have the military at their disposal? Get fucking real.
-
And you think you could overthrow the government with your rifles?
When they have the military at their disposal? Get fucking real.
:facepalm2:
Read what I wrote: "You can't defeat the US military directly, so the alternative is to go for the government directly."
-
It seems quite bizarre in a place where government are voted in by the people.
Yes.
The original thought was probably either that a government that was voted in would become totally dictatorial or that someone took over by force.
OK, I understand. Seems far fetched, though. Can only think of one scenario where that is likely. After an all out nuclear world war. Any such government would not be automatically corrupt, though, but operational due to the breakdown of social norms.
Thinking a gun would be a useful tool to have in an eventuality like that but doubtful you would get round to using against government.
-
On that note:
Ordinary people will do fucked up things when fucked up things become ordinary.
Lets give everybody a gun, promote competition through capitalism and nullify the government and laws. Volunteerism....what could go wrong?
-
On that note:
Ordinary people will do fucked up things when fucked up things become ordinary.
Lets give everybody a gun, promote competition through capitalism and nullify the government and laws. Volunteerism....what could go wrong?
How could it possibly go more wrong than it is today?
It is incredible that most people don't understand that 99% of the things that are wrong on this planet is because of the state. They think that this is bad but that it would be 1000 times worse without a government. But anarchy works perfectly if the society is just small enough.
-
Though capitalism is wrong. Mutualism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutualism_%28economic_theory%29) is right.
-
And you think you could overthrow the government with your rifles?
When they have the military at their disposal? Get fucking real.
I suggest you go back and read the exchange we had earlier about that EXACT same statement. Your reason is failing, but we can dance that dance again, if you want. I'm willing to bet that even though you have a posse which agrees with you, I will still technically defeat your stance because I have a ridiculous amount of information at my disposal on the subject of guns and government, and i'd bet my testicles that you do not. You likely get your information from media, and word of mouth from like minded friends.
Bring it, Adam. It could be fun if you got serious about it. I really enjoy stomping all over disillusionment.
-
Don't be so mean, semicolon. Feelings are more important than logic.
Feelings?
How is it not logical to suggest that a person with poor eyesight not be allowed to handle a gun in a state where a legal use is to defend yourself from intruders in your home? If anything, Semi is the one to appeal to feelings when confusing the matter with personal freedoms and other matters of personal bias.
And by the way, nobody actually shot down my proposal for military training for using a gun. Much like a driver's license, you could have a gun license which shows that you are capable of using a firearm correctly, saftley, and skillfully. To qualify with a rifle, i'm pretty sure you have to be able to use it and hit a target, so if you're too blind to do that, you fail and don't get your license?
Is something wrong with that suggestion, O-man?
No, it's a rational one. I would add realistic lighting conditions to the test, though.
I see, I was mistaken about your position. Sorry about that.
-
I don't really understand when you say "shoot the government"
I get the self defence reason. You know shooting a burglar, or protecting your family.
The Police. Yeah I get this too to some degree. I find police to be corrupt too. If the police crazies have guns then can see why you'd want one too.
The Government - I am lost here. Why would you need guns? Do you mean the army. When/where/why would the US government attack it's own people?
I'm disappointed, Bodie.
When/where/why would the US government attack it's own people?
Why? I have no answer to that question. I don't understand it and never will. When/where? You'll find a wealth of information about murderous governments here.
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE5.HTM (http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE5.HTM)
In the associated volume, Death by Government [1], I described fourteen cases in which since 1900 a regime murdered or is suspected of murdering over 1,000,000 subjects and foreigners. Four of these regimes, the Soviet Union, communist China, Nationalist China, and Nazi Germany, each killed 10,000,000 or more unarmed and helpless men, women, and children.
I also gave some descriptive statistics on these and all 204 other cases of democide (genocide, politicide, massacres, extrajudicial executions, and other forms of mass murder) by state and quasi-state regimes, and non-state groups. These revealed democide's incredible magnitude in this century and well showed the close relationship between the extent of a regime's totalitarian power, or Power in short, and democide. My conclusion was that Power kills, absolute Power kills absolutely
-
But these people think: "The American government would never...", "The British government would never...", "The Swedish government would never..." :facepalm2:
-
Yeah. Just about every single government in history "has", to some degree at least. You'd think people would learn by now that government must be kept under control. Its a wild animal.
-
.
-
On that note:
Ordinary people will do fucked up things when fucked up things become ordinary.
Lets give everybody a gun, promote competition through capitalism and nullify the government and laws. Volunteerism....what could go wrong?
On that note:
Government is comprised of ordinary people which over time have convinced themselves that they are more. Give ordinary people more and more power, and follow the exact same logic you just used.
The people in our government are not gods, Jag. They are flesh and blood people who shit, lie, and have all the faults of the "ordinary" people you mentioned, because they ARE ordinary people.
Your logic is flawed beyond belief.
-
I don't really understand when you say "shoot the government"
I get the self defence reason. You know shooting a burglar, or protecting your family.
The Police. Yeah I get this too to some degree. I find police to be corrupt too. If the police crazies have guns then can see why you'd want one too.
The Government - I am lost here. Why would you need guns? Do you mean the army. When/where/why would the US government attack it's own people?
I'm disappointed, Bodie.
Why? Because it isn't obvious to me? In my life time our respective governments have never become a regime. So I don't understand why you are disappointed I don't think the same way you do. I am asking the questions in an attempt to understand where you are coming from. I shall now read the links you provided with as open mind as I can.
Also, was wondering about your idea about 'training' which I think is good btw. Wanted to know if training would be aimed at disabling an opponent or would it be more like 'shoot to kill'. It occurred to me that someone could be easily killed for committing a first time non violent crime. I know it would be difficult to suss out at the time of the burglary or whatever crime it was so thinking 'shoot to kill' a bit extreme? Thoughts?
-
I don't really understand when you say "shoot the government"
I get the self defence reason. You know shooting a burglar, or protecting your family.
The Police. Yeah I get this too to some degree. I find police to be corrupt too. If the police crazies have guns then can see why you'd want one too.
The Government - I am lost here. Why would you need guns? Do you mean the army. When/where/why would the US government attack it's own people?
I'm disappointed, Bodie.
Why? Because it isn't obvious to me? In my life time our respective governments have never become a regime. So I don't understand why you are disappointed I don't think the same way you do. I am asking the questions in an attempt to understand where you are coming from. I shall now read the links you provided with as open mind as I can.
Also, was wondering about your idea about 'training' which I think is good btw. Wanted to know if training would be aimed at disabling an opponent or would it be more like 'shoot to kill'. It occurred to me that someone could be easily killed for committing a first time non violent crime. I know it would be difficult to suss out at the time of the burglary or whatever crime it was so thinking 'shoot to kill' a bit extreme? Thoughts?
Why? Because it isn't obvious to me? In my life time our respective governments have never become a regime. So I don't understand why you are disappointed I don't think the same way you do. I am asking the questions in an attempt to understand where you are coming from. I shall now read the links you provided with as open mind as I can.
I'm not disappointed that you don't share my view, i'm just disappointed that you now don't seem to be aware of more than what exists in your vicinity. You didn't seem the type. Oh well. Maybe you'll change your mind.
Also, was wondering about your idea about 'training' which I think is good btw. Wanted to know if training would be aimed at disabling an opponent or would it be more like 'shoot to kill'. It occurred to me that someone could be easily killed for committing a first time non violent crime. I know it would be difficult to suss out at the time of the burglary or whatever crime it was so thinking 'shoot to kill' a bit extreme? Thoughts?
I think that should indeed be part of the training. In this way, the public who wished to own firearms would have the basic skills a soldier is given, and be able to make those quick judgements based on experience. For instance, one would quickly scan an attacker for weapons. If they are armed with a gun, then kill them. If they are armed with anything else, shoot them in the leg or the arms.
That's an excellent point. Thanks for bringing it up.
-
Whatever 'type' you think I am, I can tell you that I am not the type to believe your good self any more than I believe the government. I am a thinker. I was only curious as I see quite a few American's who share your viewpoint. You have given me something to think about. Thanks.
I can't promise it will change my mind. All I can do is add it to my ever growing list of things to ponder in my overworked brain.
My mind is my own (and I reserve the right to lose it :P) and it may be a bit dippy but I like to keep it open.
Regarding the training aspect I have to say I disagree and think you should not direct people to shoot to kill. Disable only. A few seconds is not always enough to decide. Can think of loads of reasons why it may not be a good idea for people to become judge, jury and executioner.
-
On that note:
Ordinary people will do fucked up things when fucked up things become ordinary.
Lets give everybody a gun, promote competition through capitalism and nullify the government and laws. Volunteerism....what could go wrong?
On that note:
Government is comprised of ordinary people which over time have convinced themselves that they are more. Give ordinary people more and more power, and follow the exact same logic you just used.
The people in our government are not gods, Jag. They are flesh and blood people who shit, lie, and have all the faults of the "ordinary" people you mentioned, because they ARE ordinary people.
Your logic is flawed beyond belief.
huh? More angry and immature jimjam?
-
On that note:
Ordinary people will do fucked up things when fucked up things become ordinary.
Lets give everybody a gun, promote competition through capitalism and nullify the government and laws. Volunteerism....what could go wrong?
On that note:
Government is comprised of ordinary people which over time have convinced themselves that they are more. Give ordinary people more and more power, and follow the exact same logic you just used.
The people in our government are not gods, Jag. They are flesh and blood people who shit, lie, and have all the faults of the "ordinary" people you mentioned, because they ARE ordinary people.
Your logic is flawed beyond belief.
huh? More angry and immature jimjam?
pot and kettle lol
-
On that note:
Ordinary people will do fucked up things when fucked up things become ordinary.
Lets give everybody a gun, promote competition through capitalism and nullify the government and laws. Volunteerism....what could go wrong?
On that note:
Government is comprised of ordinary people which over time have convinced themselves that they are more. Give ordinary people more and more power, and follow the exact same logic you just used.
The people in our government are not gods, Jag. They are flesh and blood people who shit, lie, and have all the faults of the "ordinary" people you mentioned, because they ARE ordinary people.
Your logic is flawed beyond belief.
huh? More angry and immature jimjam?
pot and kettle lol
no. I've matured. Just look at my name
-
Most of what Rage says is correct. I don't see how that is so hard to understand.
-
:santa:
Most of what Rage says is correct. I don't see how that is so hard to understand.
cant argue with logic this sound.
-
He repeats himself very often and sometimes he is even more conspiratorial than necessary, but all in all he has gotten it right.
-
On that note:
Ordinary people will do fucked up things when fucked up things become ordinary.
Lets give everybody a gun, promote competition through capitalism and nullify the government and laws. Volunteerism....what could go wrong?
On that note:
Government is comprised of ordinary people which over time have convinced themselves that they are more. Give ordinary people more and more power, and follow the exact same logic you just used.
The people in our government are not gods, Jag. They are flesh and blood people who shit, lie, and have all the faults of the "ordinary" people you mentioned, because they ARE ordinary people.
Your logic is flawed beyond belief.
huh? More angry and immature jimjam?
pot and kettle lol
no. I've matured. Just look at my name
You're both poo flinging babies. :hahaha:
-
I think that should indeed be part of the training. In this way, the public who wished to own firearms would have the basic skills a soldier is given, and be able to make those quick judgements based on experience. For instance, one would quickly scan an attacker for weapons. If they are armed with a gun, then kill them. If they are armed with anything else, shoot them in the leg or the arms.
That's an excellent point. Thanks for bringing it up.
What ever happened to warning shots? You know, your kid's friend's cue to go "Wait! It's me!"
-
In many (most?) countries in Europe it is very hard to legally kill in self-defence. The state monopoly on violence is so important here that it is better - from the state's point of view - that a law-abiding citizen is killed or wounded for life than that a burglar or rapist etc. gets what he deserves.
-
That's what you get for sending all your violent malcontents to America and Australia. :trollface:
-
Whatever 'type' you think I am, I can tell you that I am not the type to believe your good self any more than I believe the government. I am a thinker. I was only curious as I see quite a few American's who share your viewpoint. You have given me something to think about. Thanks.
I can't promise it will change my mind. All I can do is add it to my ever growing list of things to ponder in my overworked brain.
My mind is my own (and I reserve the right to lose it :P) and it may be a bit dippy but I like to keep it open.
Regarding the training aspect I have to say I disagree and think you should not direct people to shoot to kill. Disable only. A few seconds is not always enough to decide. Can think of loads of reasons why it may not be a good idea for people to become judge, jury and executioner.
There are also situations where shooting to kill could save lives, Bodie. Remember what we discussed earlier, about spotting the really crazy ones? I think a lot more research needs to be done on that.
Whatever 'type' you think I am, I can tell you that I am not the type to believe your good self any more than I believe the government.
I do indeed see you as a thinker, and a free mind. That's why I was little surprised that you still seemed to trust your government. The U.K and America have the most corrupt governments on the planet, and i'm sure that now you've begun to give it some thought you'll come to that conclusion. The war on terror will never end, because the terrorists sit in our capitals.
My mind is my own (and I reserve the right to lose it :P) and it may be a bit dippy but I like to keep it open.
Not a thing wrong with that. I wish with everything I've got that people will become more independent thinkers. Plus, the dippy ones are the best. :green:
-
I think that should indeed be part of the training. In this way, the public who wished to own firearms would have the basic skills a soldier is given, and be able to make those quick judgements based on experience. For instance, one would quickly scan an attacker for weapons. If they are armed with a gun, then kill them. If they are armed with anything else, shoot them in the leg or the arms.
That's an excellent point. Thanks for bringing it up.
What ever happened to warning shots? You know, your kid's friend's cue to go "Wait! It's me!"
If someone receives the proper training, they will be able to judge whether or not an attacker is a threat. There should be no need for warning shots. If someone makes the mistake of going for someone with a knife, they should be ready to accept the fact that they may get a hole in their leg.
-
On that note:
Ordinary people will do fucked up things when fucked up things become ordinary.
Lets give everybody a gun, promote competition through capitalism and nullify the government and laws. Volunteerism....what could go wrong?
On that note:
Government is comprised of ordinary people which over time have convinced themselves that they are more. Give ordinary people more and more power, and follow the exact same logic you just used.
The people in our government are not gods, Jag. They are flesh and blood people who shit, lie, and have all the faults of the "ordinary" people you mentioned, because they ARE ordinary people.
Your logic is flawed beyond belief.
huh? More angry and immature jimjam?
Look man, i'm not going to treat you with kid gloves just because you're sensitive. If you can't take reality, try and avoid my threads perhaps? Just a suggestion.
-
On that note:
Ordinary people will do fucked up things when fucked up things become ordinary.
Lets give everybody a gun, promote competition through capitalism and nullify the government and laws. Volunteerism....what could go wrong?
On that note:
Government is comprised of ordinary people which over time have convinced themselves that they are more. Give ordinary people more and more power, and follow the exact same logic you just used.
The people in our government are not gods, Jag. They are flesh and blood people who shit, lie, and have all the faults of the "ordinary" people you mentioned, because they ARE ordinary people.
Your logic is flawed beyond belief.
huh? More angry and immature jimjam?
Look man, i'm not going to treat you with kid gloves just because you're sensitive. If you can't take reality, try and avoid my threads perhaps? Just a suggestion.
look man, good sir, I am not going to take you seriously until you realize that your rhetoric is divisive. You are concerned about so many things, everything makes you angry. It's all a distraction.
While you are concerned with (quite frankly) everything, income inequality is growing. The rich are eating richer and the common person is becoming slaves.
It's all a distraction to control you. Income inequality is the real issue.
-
look man, good sir, I am not going to take you seriously until you realize that your rhetoric is divisive. You are concerned about so many things, everything makes you angry. It's all a distraction.
While you are concerned with (quite frankly) everything, income inequality is growing. The rich are eating richer and the common person is becoming slaves.
It's all a distraction to control you. Income inequality is the real issue.
And feminism in its current form seems to be one of their tools. To fight a war, you attack the enemy's equipment and supplies first in order to weaken them. Taking out their social engineers will hurt their pocketbook, dude.
-
If someone receives the proper training, they will be able to judge whether or not an attacker is a threat. There should be no need for warning shots. If someone makes the mistake of going for someone with a knife, they should be ready to accept the fact that they may get a hole in their leg.
Your idea for training though was military. In a war zone, aren't the chances that it will be an enemy much higher than the chances in a civilian situation on home territory?
-
If someone receives the proper training, they will be able to judge whether or not an attacker is a threat. There should be no need for warning shots. If someone makes the mistake of going for someone with a knife, they should be ready to accept the fact that they may get a hole in their leg.
Your idea for training though was military. In a war zone, aren't the chances that it will be an enemy much higher than the chances in a civilian situation on home territory?
You misunderstand. This is a situation where people are screaming, and you can see that one or more people is armed. With the proper training, you will be able to gauge whether or not they can be taken down with non-lethal force. I'm not talking about just walking around with a gun held out at shoulder level, pointing it at people like that onion video. :LOL:
-
look man, good sir, I am not going to take you seriously until you realize that your rhetoric is divisive. You are concerned about so many things, everything makes you angry. It's all a distraction.
While you are concerned with (quite frankly) everything, income inequality is growing. The rich are eating richer and the common person is becoming slaves.
It's all a distraction to control you. Income inequality is the real issue.
And feminism in its current form seems to be one of their tools. To fight a war, you attack the enemy's equipment and supplies first in order to weaken them. Taking out their social engineers will hurt their pocketbook, dude.
son, I try to teach my kids that rebellion is good. The status quo should be challenged. But if you rage against every component of a corrupt machine, no one will take you seriously.
If you wish to change the system you need allys.
Be clear and concise. Pick your battles and you may change something.
This is what I teach my kids. Not to be an over the top nut job.
-
But if you rage against every component of a corrupt machine, no one will take you seriously.
Wrong. Corruption is like cancer. You have to nuke every single bit of it, or it will come back and kill you.
-
But if you rage against every component of a corrupt machine, no one will take you seriously.
Wrong. Corruption is like cancer. You have to nuke every single bit of it, or it will come back and kill you.
carry on then. Post whore
-
look man, good sir, I am not going to take you seriously until you realize that your rhetoric is divisive. You are concerned about so many things, everything makes you angry. It's all a distraction.
While you are concerned with (quite frankly) everything, income inequality is growing. The rich are eating richer and the common person is becoming slaves.
It's all a distraction to control you. Income inequality is the real issue.
And feminism in its current form seems to be one of their tools. To fight a war, you attack the enemy's equipment and supplies first in order to weaken them. Taking out their social engineers will hurt their pocketbook, dude.
son, I try to teach my kids that rebellion is good. The status quo should be challenged. But if you rage against every component of a corrupt machine, no one will take you seriously.
If you wish to change the system you need allys.
Be clear and concise. Pick your battles and you may change something.
This is what I teach my kids. Not to be an over the top nut job.
Oh, and since you mentioned the federal reserve and you are aware it is a corrupt institution, you might want to read this document.
http://hiwaay.net/~becraft/mcfadden.html (http://hiwaay.net/~becraft/mcfadden.html)
A truckload of nasty info. :zoinks:
But if you rage against every component of a corrupt machine, no one will take you seriously.
Wrong. Corruption is like cancer. You have to nuke every single bit of it, or it will come back and kill you.
carry on then. Post whore
I'll say to you what I said to hyke. Fair enough, pal. Some of us aren't strong enough to fight. It pisses me off but if its not in some people, then it just isn't.
I'd rather have as many people angry as I can get, though. Its getting later than you think.
-
I am smart enough to fight where the fight can be won, son.
Read the art of war.
-
I am smart enough to fight where the fight can be won, son.
Read the art of war.
Then why did your generation fail so horribly? You fucked this country up beyond recognition.
-
I am smart enough to fight where the fight can be won, son.
Read the art of war.
Then why did your generation fail so horribly? You fucked this country up beyond recognition.
um, huh? I don't even think my generation is in charge yet. You're thinking of the baby boomers
-
I am smart enough to fight where the fight can be won, son.
Read the art of war.
Then why did your generation fail so horribly? You fucked this country up beyond recognition.
um, huh? I don't even think my generation is in charge yet. You're thinking of the baby boomers
The baby boomers are almost dead.
-
Is that true? It was my understanding that the hippies who turned into the 80's consumerists and greedy bastards were just in the middle of retiring.
That means that my generation, in large part, won't get control for a few years now.
-
You misunderstand. This is a situation where people are screaming, and you can see that one or more people is armed. With the proper training, you will be able to gauge whether or not they can be taken down with non-lethal force. I'm not talking about just walking around with a gun held out at shoulder level, pointing it at people like that onion video. :LOL:
Oh I was thinking of a home invasion scenario. You're thinking more of a mass shooting like the one in the cinema?
-
[Star Trek: TNG - Data] Ooh Shhhit (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h9hg0uMwUrI#)
-
look man, good sir, I am not going to take you seriously until you realize that your rhetoric is divisive. You are concerned about so many things, everything makes you angry. It's all a distraction.
While you are concerned with (quite frankly) everything, income inequality is growing. The rich are eating richer and the common person is becoming slaves.
It's all a distraction to control you. Income inequality is the real issue.
So you mean that if the wages raise, there will be no more NSA illegally surveying people, no more wars to get oil etc?
-
My father was a social democrat when he was younger. In the union they always discussed income differences.
The thing is that the inequality among people come from the fact that there is a state. A state is made so that people should be inequal. As long as the state is not abandoned there will never be any real and permanent change.
-
It seems quite bizarre in a place where government are voted in by the people.
Actually, US citizens only vote directly for one branch out of the three (theoretically) equal branches of the federal government. The President is elected by the Electoral College, and the Supreme Court is appointed. Even members of Congress can, in special circumstances, gain office without being elected.
How would you find them? How would you spot the loner who might bring his dad's gun to school one day but leave be the other loner who is, I dunno, a spazz, like you and me? And if the former said "no, I promise, I won't shoot anyone, never even entertained the idea", would you bring him in by force?
And how would that be supporting your notion of personal freedom?
Your logic is faulty, Odeon. Although it seems to work, you can't work backwards from who is destined to be a school shooter. People have free will, and they control their own destinies. It's a matter of probabilities and warning signs. As for the actual process, here are two (http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/school-shooter) links (http://www.psychceu.com/school_violence/schoolviolence_course.asp) that outline the general principles.
How is my logic faulty? I asked how you'd spot the nutters you wanted to treat. I pointed out that it isn't a realistic option because you'd have to find them first.
Yes, quite a few of them were bullied but guess what: even more people were bullied but never went on to shoot anyone.
Call me crazy but I'd not limit myself to a single plan t prevent future shootings; I'd make sure to limit access, too. I know, it hurts your 'merican notions of freedom but that is a more fundamental difference between you and me than anything else here.
I suspect you're correct on that. Given the dilemma of safety versus freedom on this issue, I'd prefer freedom. Evidently, you would prefer safety.
I would not limit myself to one plan, either, but issuing a blanket ban on the legally blind owning guns is not one of the plans that I'd agree with.
You seem like a rational person, Semi, rational and reasonable, but I sense the opposite when discussing guns.
Guns are not about freedom, basically. They have nothing to do with it other than on the surface, they are tools that can be used for just the opposite. In fact, they are more often used for just the opposite, in spite of what your 18th century principles would suggest.
A gun is a tool in the sense that a screwdriver is a tool. I already said that. Whether it is used for good or evil depends on the user.
Which is sort of what I said, above, but I do believe a comparison with a screwdriver is fundamentally flawed. Pretty sure most armies aren't equipped with screwdrivers.
I'd suspect otherwise; how else would they fix their guns? ;)
How is it irrational to see a gun as a tool? It's used by people to get what they want, whether that's enjoyment from target shooting, food from hunting or safety from self-defense. Yes, it can be used for evil, but that depends on the user.
But the question here is why the fuck anyone in their right mind would think it's OK to give a gun to someone legally blind, shrug and say that they are just as liable as anyone else?
You talk about prevention in one case but reject the idea in another.
I don't see any contradiction. Responsible gun ownership is a matter of individual capability. You keep posting bare assertions instead of backing yourself up, as if we're all supposed to accept without proof that no legally blind people is capable of using a gun. There are many types of blind. Do you think that all blind people see nothing except a cloud of black?
Rather than letting stereotypes of the blind rule the discussion, let's have some evidence. Here is a series of pictures that depict the US definition of "legally blind". Look especially at the last one. Would you argue that an individual with that impairment couldn't go to a shooting range and safely blast a few holes in a paper target?
(http://theamazingeye.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/river_orig_1.jpg?w=450)
(http://theamazingeye.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/river_20_200.jpg?w=450)
(http://theamazingeye.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/river_peripheral_1.jpg?w=450)
These image are approximations, created to give someone with normal vision *some* idea of the problems involved. A very simple addition would be to add how poor lighting conditions affect the vision, but even that would have to be simulated.
But if this was about a tool used at a shooting range, I probably would not protest too much. But that's not the case here, is it? Be honest.
Of course they're approximations. Everyone is different in what they experience. As for what the tool is used for, that is always in the hands of the user. Like sighted people, legally blind people must be sure to use their guns responsibly, and only in ways that they are capable of doing safely.
-
How does one know when one's views have crossed over past a parody of themselves?
-
You misunderstand. This is a situation where people are screaming, and you can see that one or more people is armed. With the proper training, you will be able to gauge whether or not they can be taken down with non-lethal force. I'm not talking about just walking around with a gun held out at shoulder level, pointing it at people like that onion video. :LOL:
Oh I was thinking of a home invasion scenario. You're thinking more of a mass shooting like the one in the cinema?
Yeah.
-
How does one know when one's views have crossed over past a parody of themselves?
How does one know when they only commit actions that make them feel good about themselves?
-
How does one know when one's views have crossed over past a parody of themselves?
How does one know when they only commit actions that make them feel good about themselves?
one knows. Yes, one knows.
-
How does one know when one's views have crossed over past a parody of themselves?
How does one know when they only commit actions that make them feel good about themselves?
one knows. Yes, one knows.
Thanks for confirming that. I was pretty sure it was the case, here.
-
---
Guns are not about freedom, basically. They have nothing to do with it other than on the surface, they are tools that can be used for just the opposite. In fact, they are more often used for just the opposite, in spite of what your 18th century principles would suggest.
---
So you can't shoot an oppressor with a gun anymore? Why? And you can't defend yourself against a criminal with it? And I don't mean because of laws that are to the disadvantage of the law-abiding like the idiotic gunlaw and law about self-defence here, I mean physically. Have the laws of nature changed since the 18th century?
???
Not sure what you're on about here.
You can, obviously. My comment about 18th century principles refers to the overthrowing a corrupt government with guns party line.
You can shoot the government, just like you could 200 years ago. It's a bit more difficult since they have bodyguards etc, but on the other side the rifles are much superior today.
But you can't overthrow it using guns alone, which was my point.
-
And you think you could overthrow the government with your rifles?
When they have the military at their disposal? Get fucking real.
:facepalm2:
Read what I wrote: "You can't defeat the US military directly, so the alternative is to go for the government directly."
Read what Adam wrote. "Overthrow."
-
On that note:
Ordinary people will do fucked up things when fucked up things become ordinary.
Lets give everybody a gun, promote competition through capitalism and nullify the government and laws. Volunteerism....what could go wrong?
How could it possibly go more wrong than it is today?
It is incredible that most people don't understand that 99% of the things that are wrong on this planet is because of the state. They think that this is bad but that it would be 1000 times worse without a government. But anarchy works perfectly if the society is just small enough.
Comprising one person, maybe.
Last I checked, the population was more than one.
-
And you think you could overthrow the government with your rifles?
When they have the military at their disposal? Get fucking real.
I suggest you go back and read the exchange we had earlier about that EXACT same statement. Your reason is failing, but we can dance that dance again, if you want. I'm willing to bet that even though you have a posse which agrees with you, I will still technically defeat your stance because I have a ridiculous amount of information at my disposal on the subject of guns and government, and i'd bet my testicles that you do not. You likely get your information from media, and word of mouth from like minded friends.
Bring it, Adam. It could be fun if you got serious about it. I really enjoy stomping all over disillusionment.
His point is the same as mine and very, very simple. It takes a lot more than guns to overthrow a government today, corrupt or otherwise. The illusion of an armed citizen as hinted by the 2d amendment is just that, an illusion. If you want enough firepower to overthrow your government, you'd better make the NRA more efficient because they are lobbying for the wrong thing.
You might as well use harsh words.
-
In many (most?) countries in Europe it is very hard to legally kill in self-defence. The state monopoly on violence is so important here that it is better - from the state's point of view - that a law-abiding citizen is killed or wounded for life than that a burglar or rapist etc. gets what he deserves.
It *should* be hard. The risk of some moron getting it wrong is not insignificant and innocent would die.
-
I think that should indeed be part of the training. In this way, the public who wished to own firearms would have the basic skills a soldier is given, and be able to make those quick judgements based on experience. For instance, one would quickly scan an attacker for weapons. If they are armed with a gun, then kill them. If they are armed with anything else, shoot them in the leg or the arms.
That's an excellent point. Thanks for bringing it up.
What ever happened to warning shots? You know, your kid's friend's cue to go "Wait! It's me!"
If someone receives the proper training, they will be able to judge whether or not an attacker is a threat. There should be no need for warning shots. If someone makes the mistake of going for someone with a knife, they should be ready to accept the fact that they may get a hole in their leg.
This is bullshit, Rage. There are plenty of examples of trained folks getting it wrong.
-
It seems quite bizarre in a place where government are voted in by the people.
Actually, US citizens only vote directly for one branch out of the three (theoretically) equal branches of the federal government. The President is elected by the Electoral College, and the Supreme Court is appointed. Even members of Congress can, in special circumstances, gain office without being elected.
How would you find them? How would you spot the loner who might bring his dad's gun to school one day but leave be the other loner who is, I dunno, a spazz, like you and me? And if the former said "no, I promise, I won't shoot anyone, never even entertained the idea", would you bring him in by force?
And how would that be supporting your notion of personal freedom?
Your logic is faulty, Odeon. Although it seems to work, you can't work backwards from who is destined to be a school shooter. People have free will, and they control their own destinies. It's a matter of probabilities and warning signs. As for the actual process, here are two (http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/school-shooter) links (http://www.psychceu.com/school_violence/schoolviolence_course.asp) that outline the general principles.
How is my logic faulty? I asked how you'd spot the nutters you wanted to treat. I pointed out that it isn't a realistic option because you'd have to find them first.
Yes, quite a few of them were bullied but guess what: even more people were bullied but never went on to shoot anyone.
Call me crazy but I'd not limit myself to a single plan t prevent future shootings; I'd make sure to limit access, too. I know, it hurts your 'merican notions of freedom but that is a more fundamental difference between you and me than anything else here.
I suspect you're correct on that. Given the dilemma of safety versus freedom on this issue, I'd prefer freedom. Evidently, you would prefer safety.
You let your idealism get in the way of rationality. I wouldn't let them drive either. Not a question of freedom, just logic.
I would not limit myself to one plan, either, but issuing a blanket ban on the legally blind owning guns is not one of the plans that I'd agree with.
You seem like a rational person, Semi, rational and reasonable, but I sense the opposite when discussing guns.
Guns are not about freedom, basically. They have nothing to do with it other than on the surface, they are tools that can be used for just the opposite. In fact, they are more often used for just the opposite, in spite of what your 18th century principles would suggest.
A gun is a tool in the sense that a screwdriver is a tool. I already said that. Whether it is used for good or evil depends on the user.
Which is sort of what I said, above, but I do believe a comparison with a screwdriver is fundamentally flawed. Pretty sure most armies aren't equipped with screwdrivers.
I'd suspect otherwise; how else would they fix their guns? ;)
How is it irrational to see a gun as a tool? It's used by people to get what they want, whether that's enjoyment from target shooting, food from hunting or safety from self-defense. Yes, it can be used for evil, but that depends on the user.
A gun was not designed for enjoyment. It may be used for it now, but it wasn't designed for it. I realise the argument is necessary to defend your notion of freedom ("guns don't kill" etc) but don't kid yourself.
A screwdriver, on the other hand, is pretty specific. It is actually a tool, and it's all it is. Try to take out an opponent with it.
But the question here is why the fuck anyone in their right mind would think it's OK to give a gun to someone legally blind, shrug and say that they are just as liable as anyone else?
You talk about prevention in one case but reject the idea in another.
I don't see any contradiction. Responsible gun ownership is a matter of individual capability. You keep posting bare assertions instead of backing yourself up, as if we're all supposed to accept without proof that no legally blind people is capable of using a gun. There are many types of blind. Do you think that all blind people see nothing except a cloud of black?
Rather than letting stereotypes of the blind rule the discussion, let's have some evidence. Here is a series of pictures that depict the US definition of "legally blind". Look especially at the last one. Would you argue that an individual with that impairment couldn't go to a shooting range and safely blast a few holes in a paper target?
(http://theamazingeye.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/river_orig_1.jpg?w=450)
(http://theamazingeye.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/river_20_200.jpg?w=450)
(http://theamazingeye.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/river_peripheral_1.jpg?w=450)
These image are approximations, created to give someone with normal vision *some* idea of the problems involved. A very simple addition would be to add how poor lighting conditions affect the vision, but even that would have to be simulated.
But if this was about a tool used at a shooting range, I probably would not protest too much. But that's not the case here, is it? Be honest.
Of course they're approximations. Everyone is different in what they experience. As for what the tool is used for, that is always in the hands of the user. Like sighted people, legally blind people must be sure to use their guns responsibly, and only in ways that they are capable of doing safely.
Sorry but I find this bizarre and can't be bothered to repeat my stance again.
-
And you think you could overthrow the government with your rifles?
When they have the military at their disposal? Get fucking real.
:facepalm2:
Read what I wrote: "You can't defeat the US military directly, so the alternative is to go for the government directly."
Read what Adam wrote. "Overthrow."
If they are killed I'd say that they are overthrown.
-
On that note:
Ordinary people will do fucked up things when fucked up things become ordinary.
Lets give everybody a gun, promote competition through capitalism and nullify the government and laws. Volunteerism....what could go wrong?
How could it possibly go more wrong than it is today?
It is incredible that most people don't understand that 99% of the things that are wrong on this planet is because of the state. They think that this is bad but that it would be 1000 times worse without a government. But anarchy works perfectly if the society is just small enough.
Comprising one person, maybe.
Last I checked, the population was more than one.
Modern Times (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brentwood,_New_York)
I have posted this before. Why do you keep denying it? When Brentwood was Modern Times, they had no cops, no courts and no crimes. Everyone signed a social contract, a real one on paper, not a false imaginary one. Everyone followed the rules voluntarily.
-
In many (most?) countries in Europe it is very hard to legally kill in self-defence. The state monopoly on violence is so important here that it is better - from the state's point of view - that a law-abiding citizen is killed or wounded for life than that a burglar or rapist etc. gets what he deserves.
It *should* be hard. The risk of some moron getting it wrong is not insignificant and innocent would die.
You mean "innocent" like some burglar breaking into your house 3 o'clock in the morning? I know a case where a man got one year in jail for firing a gun over the head of a burglar. The burglar was 20 years old. The other man was almost 70 and suffered a heart attack from the event, yet got one year. Swedish "justice" at its very best.
-
Anyway, it seems obvious to me that in order to become a tyrant and turn on your own people you must have x2 'a' 's in your first name.
Like Muammar al-Gaddafi, Bashar al-Assad, Saddam Hussein, Ossama bin laden.
Now let's think :apondering:
David Cameron, Vladimir Putin. Barack Ob.... :o :o :o :o
Yikes!
-
Adalwulf :orly:
-
Anyway, it seems obvious to me that in order to become a tyrant and turn on your own people you must have x2 'a' 's in your first name.
Like Muammar al-Gaddafi, Bashar al-Assad, Saddam Hussein, Ossama bin laden.
Now let's think :apondering:
David Cameron, Vladimir Putin. Barack Ob.... :o :o :o :o
Yikes!
That was a funny coincidence, but yes. Yes Obama is a total asshole. Only problem with the two As theory? George dubya didn't have that in his first name.
-
Niggas be trollin in here.
And you think you could overthrow the government with your rifles?
When they have the military at their disposal? Get fucking real.
I suggest you go back and read the exchange we had earlier about that EXACT same statement. Your reason is failing, but we can dance that dance again, if you want. I'm willing to bet that even though you have a posse which agrees with you, I will still technically defeat your stance because I have a ridiculous amount of information at my disposal on the subject of guns and government, and i'd bet my testicles that you do not. You likely get your information from media, and word of mouth from like minded friends.
Bring it, Adam. It could be fun if you got serious about it. I really enjoy stomping all over disillusionment.
His point is the same as mine and very, very simple. It takes a lot more than guns to overthrow a government today, corrupt or otherwise. The illusion of an armed citizen as hinted by the 2d amendment is just that, an illusion. If you want enough firepower to overthrow your government, you'd better make the NRA more efficient because they are lobbying for the wrong thing.
You might as well use harsh words.
If you go back and read instead of skim, you will discover I stated very clearly that it takes more than firearms to overthrow a government, but there is no chance without them. Let me paraphrase. Firearms are required for rebellion, along with many other tecniques and equipment. This being said, yes I do think it is possible to take on the American government and straighten them out, IF everyone pulled their heads out of the sand and stopped being irresponsible little faggots. As in this is their mess to clean up, not the government's.
I think that should indeed be part of the training. In this way, the public who wished to own firearms would have the basic skills a soldier is given, and be able to make those quick judgements based on experience. For instance, one would quickly scan an attacker for weapons. If they are armed with a gun, then kill them. If they are armed with anything else, shoot them in the leg or the arms.
That's an excellent point. Thanks for bringing it up.
What ever happened to warning shots? You know, your kid's friend's cue to go "Wait! It's me!"
If someone receives the proper training, they will be able to judge whether or not an attacker is a threat. There should be no need for warning shots. If someone makes the mistake of going for someone with a knife, they should be ready to accept the fact that they may get a hole in their leg.
This is bullshit, Rage. There are plenty of examples of trained folks getting it wrong.
Lazy trained folks. Trained folks that don't give 110% in their job. Yeah i'm sure you could show me plenty of examples of those. Find me an example of one motivated and dedicated soldier or law enforcement officer who "got it wrong". I CHALLENGE YOU, sir.
-
Do you think we should all be allowed military helicopters, missiles and grenades too? Because, let's face it, with nothing but your rifle, you#re gonna do FUCK ALL to the government.
-
Do you think we should all be allowed military helicopters, missiles and grenades too? Because, let's face it, with nothing but your rifle, you#re gonna do FUCK ALL to the government.
Of course. Why should the military have monopoly on those weapons?
-
Do you think we should all be allowed military helicopters, missiles and grenades too? Because, let's face it, with nothing but your rifle, you#re gonna do FUCK ALL to the government.
Adam... I did not say that a revolution consists of marching single file to wherever the "ILLUMINATI" has their "SECRET BASE" and point their rifles at the building and shoot bullets at it like an idiot. (I said illuminati and secret base to be funny)
(http://mzonline.com/python/hgimages/taunt3.jpg)
^ That's what you seem to be talking about here. Sorry dude, but that's really retarded.
Its far more complicated, but I will say that without firearms, revolution would be impossible.
-
Adam doesn't have the right spirit! :arrr:
-
Adam doesn't have the right spirit! :arrr:
I'm starting to think he actually doesn't understand these concepts, Lit. I've seen that the guy is pretty into activism, and seems to really care about humanity. Seems like the right "spirit" to me. Maybe he -really- doesn't get it. :dunno:
-
I think that he actually doesn't understand the concept. Many people here in Sweden don't understand the concept either. I'm pretty unusual having these views myself here, even if I do know a few others who have them.
-
I think that he actually doesn't understand the concept. Many people here in Sweden don't understand the concept either. I'm pretty unusual having these views myself here, even if I do know a few others who have them.
It just seems like basic common sense and something a toddler would be able to understand, but perhaps it isn't. I mean how would banksters and other criminals dig into economics and politics so solidly if people actually understood what they were up to?
It would seem the majority really can't spot social engineering and con artistry even when its right under their noses. And even when they do, they're "fine with it" most of the time. It blows my mind. They ask questions like, "well what am I supposed to do about it", or "but hasn't it always been that way?". As if that makes things acceptable.
It blows. My fucking. Mind.
-
It seems quite bizarre in a place where government are voted in by the people.
Actually, US citizens only vote directly for one branch out of the three (theoretically) equal branches of the federal government. The President is elected by the Electoral College, and the Supreme Court is appointed. Even members of Congress can, in special circumstances, gain office without being elected.
How would you find them? How would you spot the loner who might bring his dad's gun to school one day but leave be the other loner who is, I dunno, a spazz, like you and me? And if the former said "no, I promise, I won't shoot anyone, never even entertained the idea", would you bring him in by force?
And how would that be supporting your notion of personal freedom?
Your logic is faulty, Odeon. Although it seems to work, you can't work backwards from who is destined to be a school shooter. People have free will, and they control their own destinies. It's a matter of probabilities and warning signs. As for the actual process, here are two (http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/school-shooter) links (http://www.psychceu.com/school_violence/schoolviolence_course.asp) that outline the general principles.
How is my logic faulty? I asked how you'd spot the nutters you wanted to treat. I pointed out that it isn't a realistic option because you'd have to find them first.
Yes, quite a few of them were bullied but guess what: even more people were bullied but never went on to shoot anyone.
Call me crazy but I'd not limit myself to a single plan t prevent future shootings; I'd make sure to limit access, too. I know, it hurts your 'merican notions of freedom but that is a more fundamental difference between you and me than anything else here.
I suspect you're correct on that. Given the dilemma of safety versus freedom on this issue, I'd prefer freedom. Evidently, you would prefer safety.
You let your idealism get in the way of rationality. I wouldn't let them drive either. Not a question of freedom, just logic.
Good. It's logical to ignore the rights of the minority in favor of the preferences of the majority. In this case, though, I think I have proven my rationality. I have backed myself up with logic and evidence.
Driving is a privilege; owning a gun is a right.
I would not limit myself to one plan, either, but issuing a blanket ban on the legally blind owning guns is not one of the plans that I'd agree with.
You seem like a rational person, Semi, rational and reasonable, but I sense the opposite when discussing guns.
Guns are not about freedom, basically. They have nothing to do with it other than on the surface, they are tools that can be used for just the opposite. In fact, they are more often used for just the opposite, in spite of what your 18th century principles would suggest.
A gun is a tool in the sense that a screwdriver is a tool. I already said that. Whether it is used for good or evil depends on the user.
Which is sort of what I said, above, but I do believe a comparison with a screwdriver is fundamentally flawed. Pretty sure most armies aren't equipped with screwdrivers.
I'd suspect otherwise; how else would they fix their guns? ;)
How is it irrational to see a gun as a tool? It's used by people to get what they want, whether that's enjoyment from target shooting, food from hunting or safety from self-defense. Yes, it can be used for evil, but that depends on the user.
A gun was not designed for enjoyment. It may be used for it now, but it wasn't designed for it. I realise the argument is necessary to defend your notion of freedom ("guns don't kill" etc) but don't kid yourself.
A screwdriver, on the other hand, is pretty specific. It is actually a tool, and it's all it is. Try to take out an opponent with it.
Actually, the argument works better when guns are used for what they're designed for. Then, instead of being a theoretical exercise, this becomes a practical argument with real consequences. Why shouldn't the blind be entitled to the same rights as the sighted?
In the interest of backing myself up, I've included two (http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/dec/22/two-jailed-killed-screwdriver-iphone) links (http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/local-news/walsall-man-ian-woolley-admits-4875879) to cases in the UK where screwdrivers were used as murder weapons.
But the question here is why the fuck anyone in their right mind would think it's OK to give a gun to someone legally blind, shrug and say that they are just as liable as anyone else?
You talk about prevention in one case but reject the idea in another.
I don't see any contradiction. Responsible gun ownership is a matter of individual capability. You keep posting bare assertions instead of backing yourself up, as if we're all supposed to accept without proof that no legally blind people is capable of using a gun. There are many types of blind. Do you think that all blind people see nothing except a cloud of black?
Rather than letting stereotypes of the blind rule the discussion, let's have some evidence. Here is a series of pictures that depict the US definition of "legally blind". Look especially at the last one. Would you argue that an individual with that impairment couldn't go to a shooting range and safely blast a few holes in a paper target?
(http://theamazingeye.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/river_orig_1.jpg?w=450)
(http://theamazingeye.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/river_20_200.jpg?w=450)
(http://theamazingeye.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/river_peripheral_1.jpg?w=450)
These image are approximations, created to give someone with normal vision *some* idea of the problems involved. A very simple addition would be to add how poor lighting conditions affect the vision, but even that would have to be simulated.
But if this was about a tool used at a shooting range, I probably would not protest too much. But that's not the case here, is it? Be honest.
Of course they're approximations. Everyone is different in what they experience. As for what the tool is used for, that is always in the hands of the user. Like sighted people, legally blind people must be sure to use their guns responsibly, and only in ways that they are capable of doing safely.
Sorry but I find this bizarre and can't be bothered to repeat my stance again.
Your stance so far has been a collection of stereotypes and bare assertions. How is it bizarre to hold that people are responsible for themselves?
-
You can't argue with most Europeans about guns. There are the few of us that understand that gun ownership is a right and a means for protecting freedom.
Then there is the rest, in my country and many more even including many or most of the gun owners, who are so thorougly brainwashed by propaganda that it is impossible for them to understand the concept.
-
Do you think we should all be allowed military helicopters, missiles and grenades too? Because, let's face it, with nothing but your rifle, you#re gonna do FUCK ALL to the government.
Of course. Why should the military have monopoly on those weapons?
LOL
Well I, for one, am glad that that is not the case
Also, you do realise it would only be the RICH who could ever possibly afford such things?
-
Do you think we should all be allowed military helicopters, missiles and grenades too? Because, let's face it, with nothing but your rifle, you#re gonna do FUCK ALL to the government.
Of course. Why should the military have monopoly on those weapons?
LOL
Well I, for one, am glad that that is not the case
For the military has never fired on the people...
Also, you do realise it would only be the RICH who could ever possibly afford such things?
No, I don't understand that. Several people together can buy helicopters and missiles. Grenades are not that expensive. In some countries it is quite common for private citizens to own grenades, like some countries in eastern Europe, the Middle East etc.
-
Do you think we should all be allowed military helicopters, missiles and grenades too? Because, let's face it, with nothing but your rifle, you#re gonna do FUCK ALL to the government.
Adam... I did not say that a revolution consists of marching single file to wherever the "ILLUMINATI" has their "SECRET BASE" and point their rifles at the building and shoot bullets at it like an idiot. (I said illuminati and secret base to be funny)
(http://mzonline.com/python/hgimages/taunt3.jpg)
^ That's what you seem to be talking about here. Sorry dude, but that's really retarded.
Its far more complicated, but I will say that without firearms, revolution would be impossible.
OK. Assume that everyone can have whatever weapons you think they should have access to. How would they go about this revolution then?
And yes, I know warfare is not the same in the 21st century. I don't agree with you. That doesn't mean I have some weird idea that war in 2013 is like the American Civil War or something
-
Adam doesn't have the right spirit! :arrr:
I'm starting to think he actually doesn't understand these concepts, Lit. I've seen that the guy is pretty into activism, and seems to really care about humanity. Seems like the right "spirit" to me. Maybe he -really- doesn't get it. :dunno:
You're right. I don't "get it"
That's not to say you're correct though. That's just to say I can't get my head round your way of thinking here.
How does more guns = better for humanitY?
-
Adam doesn't have the right spirit! :arrr:
I'm starting to think he actually doesn't understand these concepts, Lit. I've seen that the guy is pretty into activism, and seems to really care about humanity. Seems like the right "spirit" to me. Maybe he -really- doesn't get it. :dunno:
You're right. I don't "get it"
That's not to say you're correct though. That's just to say I can't get my head round your way of thinking here.
How does more guns = better for humanitY?
If the civilians in Syria had had military guns, do you think that it would have been as easy to rape and murder them as it is now?
-
Do you think we should all be allowed military helicopters, missiles and grenades too? Because, let's face it, with nothing but your rifle, you#re gonna do FUCK ALL to the government.
Of course. Why should the military have monopoly on those weapons?
LOL
Well I, for one, am glad that that is not the case
Also, you do realise it would only be the RICH who could ever possibly afford such things?
You can't argue with most Europeans about guns. There are the few of us that understand that gun ownership is a right and a means for protecting freedom.
Then there is the rest, in my country and many more even including many or most of the gun owners, who are so thorougly brainwashed by propaganda that it is impossible for them to understand the concept.
You don't need this weaponry to topple a war machine, Adam. With merely firearms, commonly available materials, a bit of strategy, and a can-do attitude, it is possible to topple a giant. The size and power of the U.S. military is essentially its weakness, because if it were to declare war on it's own citizens(most retarded thing I've ever heard in my entire life, btw), the military/industrial complex would lose WAY too much money trying to fight against guerilla tacticians. This is almost impossible though, because most soldiers with the slightest scrap of humanity left would outright refuse to commit mass murder on their own country.
This may help you understand, Adam:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategy_and_tactics_of_guerrilla_warfare (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategy_and_tactics_of_guerrilla_warfare)
The military /industrial complex is interested in expansion and making more and more money. They don't want to destroy their own property. Likely what would happen, is that the citizens would rebel, and the politicians and banking interests would pretend to understand for a while, giving back some civil rights and waiting for people to become complacent again so they could continue to manipulate people and break the law.
-
Driving is a privilege; owning a gun is a right.
Why is that the case?
A gun is a tool in the sense that a screwdriver is a tool. I already said that. Whether it is used for good or evil depends on the user.
The main purpose of a screwdriver is not to be used as a weapon. Of course, it CAN be. But so can anything. a gun is PRIMARILY a weapon though. A gun is designed to kill. Bad comparison.
-
Do you think we should all be allowed military helicopters, missiles and grenades too? Because, let's face it, with nothing but your rifle, you#re gonna do FUCK ALL to the government.
Of course. Why should the military have monopoly on those weapons?
LOL
Well I, for one, am glad that that is not the case
For the military has never fired on the people...
Also, you do realise it would only be the RICH who could ever possibly afford such things?
No, I don't understand that. Several people together can buy helicopters and missiles. Grenades are not that expensive. In some countries it is quite common for private citizens to own grenades, like some countries in eastern Europe, the Middle East etc.
They have in America.
-
Driving is a privilege; owning a gun is a right.
Why is that the case?
A gun is a tool in the sense that a screwdriver is a tool. I already said that. Whether it is used for good or evil depends on the user.
The main purpose of a screwdriver is not to be used as a weapon. Of course, it CAN be. But so can anything. a gun is PRIMARILY a weapon though. A gun is designed to kill. Bad comparison.
You are being extremely close-minded, Adam. Its like arguing with a religious zealot. Did you know that knives and pointy shaped things WERE originally designed to kill things? They have since become tools to be used for safety and utility.
Adam doesn't have the right spirit! :arrr:
I'm starting to think he actually doesn't understand these concepts, Lit. I've seen that the guy is pretty into activism, and seems to really care about humanity. Seems like the right "spirit" to me. Maybe he -really- doesn't get it. :dunno:
You're right. I don't "get it"
That's not to say you're correct though. That's just to say I can't get my head round your way of thinking here.
How does more guns = better for humanitY?
How do less guns = better for humanity?
More guns means more people responsible for their own safety and less responsibility for their governments. This is better for humanity. I don't know how I could be any more specific.
-
Why is that the case?
It's a natural right to defend yourself. In the US it is also a right by the constitution.
The main purpose of a screwdriver is not to be used as a weapon. Of course, it CAN be. But so can anything. a gun is PRIMARILY a weapon though. A gun is designed to kill. Bad comparison.
So killing is always wrong? Would it be wrong for Syrian civilians to kill the ones raping, torturing and murdering them? :facepalm2:
-
Do you think we should all be allowed military helicopters, missiles and grenades too? Because, let's face it, with nothing but your rifle, you#re gonna do FUCK ALL to the government.
Of course. Why should the military have monopoly on those weapons?
LOL
Well I, for one, am glad that that is not the case
For the military has never fired on the people...
Also, you do realise it would only be the RICH who could ever possibly afford such things?
No, I don't understand that. Several people together can buy helicopters and missiles. Grenades are not that expensive. In some countries it is quite common for private citizens to own grenades, like some countries in eastern Europe, the Middle East etc.
They have in America.
They have in Europe too. Yet Adam doesn't want that in his comfortable zone.
-
Do you think we should all be allowed military helicopters, missiles and grenades too? Because, let's face it, with nothing but your rifle, you#re gonna do FUCK ALL to the government.
Of course. Why should the military have monopoly on those weapons?
LOL
Well I, for one, am glad that that is not the case
For the military has never fired on the people...
???
Sorry but what is that in response to?
I said I was glad that my neighbours don't have rocket propelled grenades.
I didn't say the military has never fired on its own people.
No, I don't understand that. Several people together can buy helicopters and missiles. Grenades are not that expensive. In some countries it is quite common for private citizens to own grenades, like some countries in eastern Europe, the Middle East etc.
Of course most people could afford grenades. In this ridiculous little anarchist society you seem to want, do you really think YOU would be able to buy these weapons though? You, the autistic guy who doesn't have any money except what the (presumably now long-dead) government gave you?
You really think everyone would club together to share their millions-of-pounds-worth of weapons with you?
-
You are being extremely close-minded, Adam. Its like arguing with a religious zealot. Did you know that knives and pointy shaped things WERE originally designed to kill things? They have since become tools to be used for safety and utility.
A better example there would be swords. The kind of knife you'd cut your dinner with isn't primarily a weapon.
And as for being closed-minded and zealous, I would say definitely No more than you are.
More guns means more people responsible for their own safety and less responsibility for their governments. This is better for humanity. I don't know how I could be any more specific.
It doesn't seem to work that way in the US
Also, I don't need a link to a wikipedia article on guerrila warfare. I've read books about it. I understand warfare. I don't see how what you are describing would work in the US/Uk etc.
You currently HAVE access to guns. Why is no one bothering with this great revolution?
And Lit. Syria isn't quite the same. I'm sure you'll say I'm being naive and deluded, but I'm pretty sure the situation in Syria isn't going to play out here any time soon.
-
Why is that the case?
It's a natural right to defend yourself. In the US it is also a right by the constitution.
The main purpose of a screwdriver is not to be used as a weapon. Of course, it CAN be. But so can anything. a gun is PRIMARILY a weapon though. A gun is designed to kill. Bad comparison.
So killing is always wrong? Would it be wrong for Syrian civilians to kill the ones raping, torturing and murdering them? :facepalm2:
Right to defend yourself yes. With a gun? Why not right to defend yourself with any kind of weapon, no matter how destructive/dangerous? Why specifically a gun?
-
They have in Europe too. Yet Adam doesn't want that in his comfortable zone.
Yeah, sure. Because obviously what I'm saying is that everything in Europe is GREAT AND PERFECT... ::)
-
???
Sorry but what is that in response to?
I said I was glad that my neighbours don't have rocket propelled grenades.
I didn't say the military has never fired on its own people.
The military has shot on the people, and you don't understand why the people should be able to defend itself?
Of course most people could afford grenades. In this ridiculous little anarchist society you seem to want, do you really think YOU would be able to buy these weapons though? You, the autistic guy who doesn't have any money except what the (presumably now long-dead) government gave you?
You are the one who thinks that you will ever get a fair system by voting.
You don't have to buy grenades. This also shows how little you know about most things.
You really think everyone would club together to share their millions-of-pounds-worth of weapons with you?
In an anarchy people would understand that they should cooperate so that no one could ever get a monopoly on violence again.
-
You are being extremely close-minded, Adam. Its like arguing with a religious zealot. Did you know that knives and pointy shaped things WERE originally designed to kill things? They have since become tools to be used for safety and utility.
A better example there would be swords. The kind of knife you'd cut your dinner with isn't primarily a weapon.
And as for being closed-minded and zealous, I would say definitely No more than you are.
Adam doesn't have the right spirit! :arrr:
I'm starting to think he actually doesn't understand these concepts, Lit. I've seen that the guy is pretty into activism, and seems to really care about humanity. Seems like the right "spirit" to me. Maybe he -really- doesn't get it. :dunno:
You're right. I don't "get it"
That's not to say you're correct though. That's just to say I can't get my head round your way of thinking here.
How does more guns = better for humanitY?
How do less guns = better for humanity?
More guns means more people responsible for their own safety and less responsibility for their governments. This is better for humanity. I don't know how I could be any more specific.
[/quote]
A better example there would be swords. The kind of knife you'd cut your dinner with isn't primarily a weapon.
Absolutey wrong. The first "tools" were mostly pointy sticks and chipped rocks. Cavemen used these to kill each other and animals. Your precious guns aren't tools argument is not going to hold up, Adam. You're not getting away with it here.
And as for being closed-minded and zealous, I would say definitely No more than you are.
Is that so? Definition of "close minded":
Intolerant of the beliefs and opinions of others; stubbornly unreceptive to new ideas.
Now.. who is trying to ban everything? :zoinks: Certainly not me. I'm actually trying to analyze the problems we face today and suggest real solutions. Your crowd seems content with throwing everything they don't like in jail and never talking about it again.
Like the church used to do.
-
Why is that the case?
It's a natural right to defend yourself. In the US it is also a right by the constitution.
The main purpose of a screwdriver is not to be used as a weapon. Of course, it CAN be. But so can anything. a gun is PRIMARILY a weapon though. A gun is designed to kill. Bad comparison.
So killing is always wrong? Would it be wrong for Syrian civilians to kill the ones raping, torturing and murdering them? :facepalm2:
Right to defend yourself yes. With a gun? Why not right to defend yourself with any kind of weapon, no matter how destructive/dangerous? Why specifically a gun?
You should of course have the right to defend yourself with any means necessary.
-
They have in Europe too. Yet Adam doesn't want that in his comfortable zone.
Yeah, sure. Because obviously what I'm saying is that everything in Europe is GREAT AND PERFECT... ::)
Yet you think that you can vote away the wrongs...
-
So killing is always wrong? Would it be wrong for Syrian civilians to kill the ones raping, torturing and murdering them?
I think killing a burglar is wrong. The death penalty for a burglar? Is that really fair? I suppose you will say he forfeited his right to life by stepping on my property! Where do you draw the line, someone touches your car or steels your wheel trims? It just seems dodgy ground. :dunno:
-
It doesn't seem to work that way in the US
HAH! GOTCHA. I have some bad news, adam. Countless studies conclude that in areas where it is legal to have concealed carry and such and there aren't any militant anti gun policies result in violent crime almost disappearing. Need I show you? Do we really need to rub this in?
-
So killing is always wrong? Would it be wrong for Syrian civilians to kill the ones raping, torturing and murdering them?
I think killing a burglar is wrong. The death penalty for a burglar? Is that really fair? I suppose you will say he forfeited his right to life by stepping on my property! Where do you draw the line, someone touches your car or steels your wheel trims? It just seems dodgy ground. :dunno:
You don't have to kill a burglar, but if you do, it was to 99.99% his own fault. What did he have to do in your home in the first place?
-
So killing is always wrong? Would it be wrong for Syrian civilians to kill the ones raping, torturing and murdering them?
I think killing a burglar is wrong. The death penalty for a burglar? Is that really fair? I suppose you will say he forfeited his right to life by stepping on my property! Where do you draw the line, someone touches your car or steels your wheel trims? It just seems dodgy ground. :dunno:
There would be less professional criminals...
-
So killing is always wrong? Would it be wrong for Syrian civilians to kill the ones raping, torturing and murdering them?
I think killing a burglar is wrong. The death penalty for a burglar? Is that really fair? I suppose you will say he forfeited his right to life by stepping on my property! Where do you draw the line, someone touches your car or steels your wheel trims? It just seems dodgy ground. :dunno:
There would be less professional criminals...
I know one Swedish guy who says that if a criminal attacks you, he has decided that one of you should have a bad day. Tough luck if it happens to be the criminal.
-
And you think you could overthrow the government with your rifles?
When they have the military at their disposal? Get fucking real.
:facepalm2:
Read what I wrote: "You can't defeat the US military directly, so the alternative is to go for the government directly."
Read what Adam wrote. "Overthrow."
If they are killed I'd say that they are overthrown.
Governments are only rarely about one person.
-
And you think you could overthrow the government with your rifles?
When they have the military at their disposal? Get fucking real.
:facepalm2:
Read what I wrote: "You can't defeat the US military directly, so the alternative is to go for the government directly."
Read what Adam wrote. "Overthrow."
If they are killed I'd say that they are overthrown.
Governments are only rarely about one person.
I know. But if ten are shot maybe the rest will get a little nervous.
-
And you don't even have to be an anarchist to have these views. What happens in Syria right now? What happened in Yugoslavia just a few years ago? It is unbelievably stupid to think that it's impossible that things like these will happen again in western Europe or America. Incredibly naïve.
-
So killing is always wrong? Would it be wrong for Syrian civilians to kill the ones raping, torturing and murdering them?
I think killing a burglar is wrong. The death penalty for a burglar? Is that really fair? I suppose you will say he forfeited his right to life by stepping on my property! Where do you draw the line, someone touches your car or steels your wheel trims? It just seems dodgy ground. :dunno:
There's a difference between the death penalty and killing in self-defense. How do you know if a trespasser is a burglar or a murderer?
As far as I know, self-defense can only be invoked if the person doing the killing is in danger of losing his/her life or suffering serious injury. You can't just shoot people.
-
So killing is always wrong? Would it be wrong for Syrian civilians to kill the ones raping, torturing and murdering them?
I think killing a burglar is wrong. The death penalty for a burglar? Is that really fair? I suppose you will say he forfeited his right to life by stepping on my property! Where do you draw the line, someone touches your car or steels your wheel trims? It just seems dodgy ground. :dunno:
You don't have to kill a burglar, but if you do, it was to 99.99% his own fault. What did he have to do in your home in the first place?
Maybe he was cold and hungry because he no longer gets his benefit cheque from the government you just overthrown?
Or maybe he been porkin your missus because you been too preoccupied polishing your shooter ?
Either way I don't think he should be killed. Seems harsh.
-
So killing is always wrong? Would it be wrong for Syrian civilians to kill the ones raping, torturing and murdering them?
I think killing a burglar is wrong. The death penalty for a burglar? Is that really fair? I suppose you will say he forfeited his right to life by stepping on my property! Where do you draw the line, someone touches your car or steels your wheel trims? It just seems dodgy ground. :dunno:
There's a difference between the death penalty and killing in self-defense. How do you know if a trespasser is a burglar or a murderer?
As far as I know, self-defense can only be invoked if the person doing the killing is in danger of losing his/her life or suffering serious injury. You can't just shoot people.
I don't think you should just shoot them either. But in my country or in the UK you can't even threaten a burglar with violence in your own home without the risk that you will be punished. In your own home.
-
Maybe he was cold and hungry because he no longer gets his benefit cheque from the government you just overthrown?
:laugh:
Or maybe he been porkin your missus because you been too preoccupied polishing your shooter ?
:viking:
Either way I don't think he should be killed. Seems harsh.
I don't say that anyone should be killed right away, but in your country and mine too victims who defend themselves are often prosecuted. That is outright perverted.
-
So killing is always wrong? Would it be wrong for Syrian civilians to kill the ones raping, torturing and murdering them?
I think killing a burglar is wrong. The death penalty for a burglar? Is that really fair? I suppose you will say he forfeited his right to life by stepping on my property! Where do you draw the line, someone touches your car or steels your wheel trims? It just seems dodgy ground. :dunno:
There's a difference between the death penalty and killing in self-defense. How do you know if a trespasser is a burglar or a murderer?
As far as I know, self-defense can only be invoked if the person doing the killing is in danger of losing his/her life or suffering serious injury. You can't just shoot people.
I know. You are talking about playing by the current rules. I was talking about a hypothetical lit/post revolution type scenario.
-
Maybe he was cold and hungry because he no longer gets his benefit cheque from the government you just overthrown?
:laugh:
Or maybe he been porkin your missus because you been too preoccupied polishing your shooter ?
:viking:
Either way I don't think he should be killed. Seems harsh.
I don't say that anyone should be killed right away, but in your country and mine too victims who defend themselves are often prosecuted. That is outright perverted.
I have to agree. It is ridiculous.
-
So killing is always wrong? Would it be wrong for Syrian civilians to kill the ones raping, torturing and murdering them?
I think killing a burglar is wrong. The death penalty for a burglar? Is that really fair? I suppose you will say he forfeited his right to life by stepping on my property! Where do you draw the line, someone touches your car or steels your wheel trims? It just seems dodgy ground. :dunno:
There's a difference between the death penalty and killing in self-defense. How do you know if a trespasser is a burglar or a murderer?
As far as I know, self-defense can only be invoked if the person doing the killing is in danger of losing his/her life or suffering serious injury. You can't just shoot people.
I know. You are talking about playing by the current rules. I was talking about a hypothetical lit/post revolution type scenario.
You didn't say that we were playing by Lit's post-revolution rules. :P
-
The military has shot on the people, and you don't understand why the people should be able to defend itself?
Again, how do you think you are going to defend yourself against THE MILITARY?
In an anarchy people would understand that they should cooperate so that no one could ever get a monopoly on violence again.
And that is not how human society works. Which shows how little YOU know about anyting.
-
Absolutey wrong. The first "tools" were mostly pointy sticks and chipped rocks. Cavemen used these to kill each other and animals. Your precious guns aren't tools argument is not going to hold up, Adam. You're not getting away with it here.
I said kitchen knives aren't PRIMARY WEAPONS. Not that knives weren't used as weapons. Lol, what is it with people on here trying to give me lessons in caveman life lately?
Now.. who is trying to ban everything? :zoinks: Certainly not me. I'm actually trying to analyze the problems we face today and suggest real solutions. Your crowd seems content with throwing everything they don't like in jail and never talking about it again.
Like the church used to do.
I am against gun ownership so that means I'm "throwing everything I don't like in jail and never talking about it again"?
What?
[/quote]
-
Again, how do you think you are going to defend yourself against THE MILITARY?
With military weapons and guerilla warfare. Take out high officers with snipers etc.
And that is not how human society works. Which shows how little YOU know about anyting.
No, Modern Times worked fine until the civil war destroyed it. It is the state that makes people egoistic, short-sighted etc.
-
They have in Europe too. Yet Adam doesn't want that in his comfortable zone.
Yeah, sure. Because obviously what I'm saying is that everything in Europe is GREAT AND PERFECT... ::)
Yet you think that you can vote away the wrongs...
Lit, I've noticed you seem to keep putting words in my mouth and then replying to those words you put there.
Yes, the right to vote is more important to me than the "right" to own a gun. It's not perfect, but it sue as hell makes more sense than your childish anarchy ideas.
-
I am against gun ownership so that means I'm "throwing everything I don't like in jail and never talking about it again"?
What?
Being against gun ownership is a fundamental wrong, unless you are against the state too owning guns.
-
I am against gun ownership so that means I'm "throwing everything I don't like in jail and never talking about it again"?
What?
Being against gun ownership is a fundamental wrong, unless you are against the state too owning guns.
Well clearly we disagree on that one
-
Lit, I've noticed you seem to keep putting words in my mouth and then replying to those words you put there.
Because you are so predictable. Already in the next sentence you prove me right...
Yes, the right to vote is more important to me than the "right" to own a gun. It's not perfect, but it sue as hell makes more sense than your childish anarchy ideas.
"Childish" is to think that you can vote away psychopaths who have a monopoly on violence or that you can make them behave like decent people.
-
Again, how do you think you are going to defend yourself against THE MILITARY?
With military weapons and guerilla warfare. Take out high officers with snipers etc.
So we all have the same weapons the military has? We can all just go out and by fucking missiles?
-
I am against gun ownership so that means I'm "throwing everything I don't like in jail and never talking about it again"?
What?
Being against gun ownership is a fundamental wrong, unless you are against the state too owning guns.
Well clearly we disagree on that one
You can see in Syria what could happen in the UK too, but you obvisously want that, since you want to be sure that you can't defend yourself.
-
Lit, I've noticed you seem to keep putting words in my mouth and then replying to those words you put there.
Because you are so predictable.
Obviously I'm not as predictable as you think I am, given how many times you seem to think I've said something I obviously haven't said.
-
I am against gun ownership so that means I'm "throwing everything I don't like in jail and never talking about it again"?
What?
Being against gun ownership is a fundamental wrong, unless you are against the state too owning guns.
Well clearly we disagree on that one
You can see in Syria what could happen in the UK too, but you obvisously want that, since you want to be sure that you can't defend yourself.
I think our current government are cunts, but I don't think they're going to start shooting us or gassing us.
-
So we all have the same weapons the military has? We can all just go out and by fucking missiles?
Why not? You can't even think out of the box so much that you would ever get the idea that it is bizarre that the state can have these weapons. When the state has weapons to kill millions of people, that is totally natural to you :facepalm2:
-
I am against gun ownership so that means I'm "throwing everything I don't like in jail and never talking about it again"?
What?
Being against gun ownership is a fundamental wrong, unless you are against the state too owning guns.
Well clearly we disagree on that one
You can see in Syria what could happen in the UK too, but you obvisously want that, since you want to be sure that you can't defend yourself.
I think our current government are cunts, but I don't think they're going to start shooting us or gassing us.
How do you know for sure? The Swedish military shot unarmed workers as late as 1931, when my grandma was a girl.
-
Well there isn't really much we can do to get rid of these weapons altogether now, is there? So yes, I'd rather the state had them rather than ANY fucker who wants them
-
Well there isn't really much we can do to get rid of these weapons altogether now, is there? So yes, I'd rather the state had them rather than ANY fucker who wants them
We could get rid of them tomorrow, unless most people didn't have the same mindset as you have.
-
::)
Again, what world are you living in?
-
::)
Again, what world are you living in?
This shit is possible because 99.99% of all people accept it.
Even in Sweden you could defeat the cops with hunting rifles, because there are 2 million guns but only 25000 cops. It doesn't happen, though, because most people don't get this simple maths, or if they do, they are on the side of the state, because it's more convenient for them in the short run.
-
Those ruling the world are psychopaths, murderers, criminals, even by the definition of the laws of the states that they rule. People are raped, tortured and murdered so that they can play their sick little games. Yet people like Adam think that this is perfectly OK and that we should make it even easier for them to rape, torture and murder by disarming all civilians.
Logically this must be what Adam et al are thinking, since they don't think that it is wrong with armed states, only armed citizens. He said it. Most other people who are for disarming the citizens are also against disarming the state.
-
Well there isn't really much we can do to get rid of these weapons altogether now, is there? So yes, I'd rather the state had them rather than ANY fucker who wants them
You show your hand now. Would you care to tell me why you think this?
-
Absolutey wrong. The first "tools" were mostly pointy sticks and chipped rocks. Cavemen used these to kill each other and animals. Your precious guns aren't tools argument is not going to hold up, Adam. You're not getting away with it here.
I said kitchen knives aren't PRIMARY WEAPONS. Not that knives weren't used as weapons. Lol, what is it with people on here trying to give me lessons in caveman life lately?
Now.. who is trying to ban everything? :zoinks: Certainly not me. I'm actually trying to analyze the problems we face today and suggest real solutions. Your crowd seems content with throwing everything they don't like in jail and never talking about it again.
Like the church used to do.
I am against gun ownership so that means I'm "throwing everything I don't like in jail and never talking about it again"?
What?
[/quote]
I am against gun ownership so that means I'm "throwing everything I don't like in jail and never talking about it again"?
You are against more than gun ownership, and you know it. Lets be honest with each other, okay?
I said kitchen knives aren't PRIMARY WEAPONS. Not that knives weren't used as weapons. Lol, what is it with people on here trying to give me lessons in caveman life lately?
Because it is simply a fact. The objects you claim are tools and claim are morally justifiable in light of firearms, were originally developed for murdering people. I'll say it again, pointy things were originally a weapon, and used to commit murder. Since then humans have gained more wherewithal and killing things with these objects is quite rare in comparison to their more common uses. Same with GGGUUUUUUNNS. By calling these pointy things tools, you automatically give firearms the same label without intending to, since they were both developed for the same reasons. To kill. Whether that be killing food, or other people.
-
The military has shot on the people, and you don't understand why the people should be able to defend itself?
Again, how do you think you are going to defend yourself against THE MILITARY?
In an anarchy people would understand that they should cooperate so that no one could ever get a monopoly on violence again.
And that is not how human society works. Which shows how little YOU know about anyting.
Again, how do you think you are going to defend yourself against THE MILITARY?
Its highly unlikely we'd actually have to resort to that, but if it did come to blows, with guerrilla warfare. By hiding, destroying factories, cutting off supply routes, burning down media offices, blow up the federal reserve branches, poisoning water, sabotaging communications, etc. By doing these things, you essentially hit them in their weak point. Their precious cash flow. People have been doing this for a VERY long time, and they have been succeeding.
I think our current government are cunts, but I don't think they're going to start shooting us or gassing us.
You're right on this point. They have no desire to damage or kill their own property(slaves). Our meager existence is what these people live off of. It could be SOOO much better, Adam. Most wars, cultural differences, etc occur now by design of money interests.
So, let me ask you a question. What you're basically saying is, you're perfectly happy being a piece of property as long as your masters don't decide to hurt you?
(they -are- hurting you, dammit)
-
So killing is always wrong? Would it be wrong for Syrian civilians to kill the ones raping, torturing and murdering them?
I think killing a burglar is wrong. The death penalty for a burglar? Is that really fair? I suppose you will say he forfeited his right to life by stepping on my property! Where do you draw the line, someone touches your car or steels your wheel trims? It just seems dodgy ground. :dunno:
You don't have to kill a burglar, but if you do, it was to 99.99% his own fault. What did he have to do in your home in the first place?
Maybe he was cold and hungry because he no longer gets his benefit cheque from the government you just overthrown?
Or maybe he been porkin your missus because you been too preoccupied polishing your shooter ?
Either way I don't think he should be killed. Seems harsh.
There is a line. You can't just be judge and executioner, and I don't think any reasonable person wants to do that. We aren't all psychopaths. Now if someone uses deadly force in response to a threat to their own life or the lives of their loved ones? Fair game. You can't just go around murdering people with impunity, and it is ridiculous to leave the responsibility of protecting yourself from those kind of people to the "police". That's childish, as a matter of fact.
It seems like as a society, we are infested with the attitude of passing along responsibilities to a "mommy and daddy" state. News flash, folks. The government is not your mommy and daddy. They don't love you.
-
It doesn't seem to work that way in the US
HAH! GOTCHA. I have some bad news, adam. Countless studies conclude that in areas where it is legal to have concealed carry and such and there aren't any militant anti gun policies result in violent crime almost disappearing. Need I show you? Do we really need to rub this in?
Also quote quoted, and bolded so you can't miss it. Welcome to reality.
-
Seems like this same Iowa legislation which allows blind peoplevtoncarry guns on the street also allows convicted sex offenders a permit to carry.
-
Seems? Does it or doesn't it?
-
Seems? Does it or doesn't it?
it does...
If you write 'seems like' people might do research.
Louisiana just passed a bill that nullifies all gun control legislation. Now convicted felons can buy guns.
-
Seems? Does it or doesn't it?
it does...
If you write 'seems like' people might do research.
Louisiana just passed a bill that nullifies all gun control legislation. Now convicted felons can buy guns.
Convicted felons can get a gun whether or not it is legal if they are up to no good. Also, convicted felon is a broad term. What crimes does it cover? Are all convicted felons even guilty of their charges? Does convicted felon mean you are a lesser person, even if you've proven yourself rehabilitated?
-
On that note:
Ordinary people will do fucked up things when fucked up things become ordinary.
Lets give everybody a gun, promote competition through capitalism and nullify the government and laws. Volunteerism....what could go wrong?
How could it possibly go more wrong than it is today?
It is incredible that most people don't understand that 99% of the things that are wrong on this planet is because of the state. They think that this is bad but that it would be 1000 times worse without a government. But anarchy works perfectly if the society is just small enough.
Comprising one person, maybe.
Last I checked, the population was more than one.
Modern Times (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brentwood,_New_York)
I have posted this before. Why do you keep denying it? When Brentwood was Modern Times, they had no cops, no courts and no crimes. Everyone signed a social contract, a real one on paper, not a false imaginary one. Everyone followed the rules voluntarily.
Initially, no system of authority existed in the colony; there were no courts, jails or police. This appears to have given some credence to Warren's theories that the most significant cause of violence in society was most attributable to policies and law which did not allow complete individuality in person and property. However, the modest population of the colony might be considered a factor in this characteristic.
We have been through this before, Lit. It doesn't work.
-
In many (most?) countries in Europe it is very hard to legally kill in self-defence. The state monopoly on violence is so important here that it is better - from the state's point of view - that a law-abiding citizen is killed or wounded for life than that a burglar or rapist etc. gets what he deserves.
It *should* be hard. The risk of some moron getting it wrong is not insignificant and innocent would die.
You mean "innocent" like some burglar breaking into your house 3 o'clock in the morning? I know a case where a man got one year in jail for firing a gun over the head of a burglar. The burglar was 20 years old. The other man was almost 70 and suffered a heart attack from the event, yet got one year. Swedish "justice" at its very best.
Innocent, like a teenager returning home late. Accidents involving guns in the home are quite common.
Now, add poor night vision to the mix.
-
Do you think we should all be allowed military helicopters, missiles and grenades too? Because, let's face it, with nothing but your rifle, you#re gonna do FUCK ALL to the government.
They won't allow me to have Tomahawk missiles or nukes. :(
-
Niggas be trollin in here.
And you think you could overthrow the government with your rifles?
When they have the military at their disposal? Get fucking real.
I suggest you go back and read the exchange we had earlier about that EXACT same statement. Your reason is failing, but we can dance that dance again, if you want. I'm willing to bet that even though you have a posse which agrees with you, I will still technically defeat your stance because I have a ridiculous amount of information at my disposal on the subject of guns and government, and i'd bet my testicles that you do not. You likely get your information from media, and word of mouth from like minded friends.
Bring it, Adam. It could be fun if you got serious about it. I really enjoy stomping all over disillusionment.
His point is the same as mine and very, very simple. It takes a lot more than guns to overthrow a government today, corrupt or otherwise. The illusion of an armed citizen as hinted by the 2d amendment is just that, an illusion. If you want enough firepower to overthrow your government, you'd better make the NRA more efficient because they are lobbying for the wrong thing.
You might as well use harsh words.
If you go back and read instead of skim, you will discover I stated very clearly that it takes more than firearms to overthrow a government, but there is no chance without them. Let me paraphrase. Firearms are required for rebellion, along with many other tecniques and equipment. This being said, yes I do think it is possible to take on the American government and straighten them out, IF everyone pulled their heads out of the sand and stopped being irresponsible little faggots. As in this is their mess to clean up, not the government's.
If you actually read the thread instead of giving in to the knee-jerk, you will note that this thread is yet another example of the usual I2 gun law debate, which gives it a context in which both our replies should be read. The thread is not titled "the things I actually need to overthrow the government".
I've said time and again that you need a lot more than guns if you want to realistically overthrow a corrupt government, which is the raison d'etre for the 2d amendment and what you people will frequently refer to when wanting to keep your guns, whatever the cost.
I think that should indeed be part of the training. In this way, the public who wished to own firearms would have the basic skills a soldier is given, and be able to make those quick judgements based on experience. For instance, one would quickly scan an attacker for weapons. If they are armed with a gun, then kill them. If they are armed with anything else, shoot them in the leg or the arms.
That's an excellent point. Thanks for bringing it up.
What ever happened to warning shots? You know, your kid's friend's cue to go "Wait! It's me!"
If someone receives the proper training, they will be able to judge whether or not an attacker is a threat. There should be no need for warning shots. If someone makes the mistake of going for someone with a knife, they should be ready to accept the fact that they may get a hole in their leg.
This is bullshit, Rage. There are plenty of examples of trained folks getting it wrong.
Lazy trained folks. Trained folks that don't give 110% in their job. Yeah i'm sure you could show me plenty of examples of those. Find me an example of one motivated and dedicated soldier or law enforcement officer who "got it wrong". I CHALLENGE YOU, sir.
I won't feed your circle jerk, then. I bet that you'd dismiss every example I'd produce as someone not giving "110%". What's the bloody point?
-
Do you think we should all be allowed military helicopters, missiles and grenades too? Because, let's face it, with nothing but your rifle, you#re gonna do FUCK ALL to the government.
Of course. Why should the military have monopoly on those weapons?
Because then the current gun-related statistics would be dwarfed by some really big numbers involving "Tomahawk-related accidents in the home", "school bombings involving nukes" and the like.
-
Adam doesn't have the right spirit! :arrr:
I'm starting to think he actually doesn't understand these concepts, Lit. I've seen that the guy is pretty into activism, and seems to really care about humanity. Seems like the right "spirit" to me. Maybe he -really- doesn't get it. :dunno:
Or maybe, oh, I dunno, he does but you don't. What makes you so certain that you are right?
-
Driving is a privilege; owning a gun is a right.
Technically, in the US, yes, because the latter is protected by the 2d amendment.
I suspect the only reason for this apparent anomaly is that cars hadn't been invented at the time.
-
Your stance so far has been a collection of stereotypes and bare assertions. How is it bizarre to hold that people are responsible for themselves?
???
What is stereotypical about the legal definition of blindness as a divider between who gets to use a gun and who doesn't?
-
You can't argue with most Europeans about guns. There are the few of us that understand that gun ownership is a right and a means for protecting freedom.
Then there is the rest, in my country and many more even including many or most of the gun owners, who are so thorougly brainwashed by propaganda that it is impossible for them to understand the concept.
One could use pretty much the same argument re gun nutters. Try it.
-
You are being extremely close-minded, Adam. Its like arguing with a religious zealot. Did you know that knives and pointy shaped things WERE originally designed to kill things? They have since become tools to be used for safety and utility.
Really?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oldowan#The_tools
-
Seems? Does it or doesn't it?
it does...
If you write 'seems like' people might do research.
Louisiana just passed a bill that nullifies all gun control legislation. Now convicted felons can buy guns.
Plus, many states - Iowa is a shining example, I believe - will automatically give you a permit if you have one obtained in another state.
-
Those ruling the world are psychopaths, murderers, criminals, even by the definition of the laws of the states that they rule. People are raped, tortured and murdered so that they can play their sick little games. Yet people like Adam think that this is perfectly OK and that we should make it even easier for them to rape, torture and murder by disarming all civilians.
Logically this must be what Adam et al are thinking, since they don't think that it is wrong with armed states, only armed citizens. He said it. Most other people who are for disarming the citizens are also against disarming the state.
Didn't I say earlier that I would LIKE the state to be disarmed as well, but that between 1) state and civilians armed and 2) only state armed, I choose 2
Please show me how the UK government are routinely raping, killing and torturing british citizens
-
Well there isn't really much we can do to get rid of these weapons altogether now, is there? So yes, I'd rather the state had them rather than ANY fucker who wants them
You show your hand now. Would you care to tell me why you think this?
What do you want me to say? I simply feel much more comfortable knowing my neighbours haven't all got rifles in their houses.
-
You are against more than gun ownership, and you know it. Lets be honest with each other, okay?
Ok so what else is this about then? I assmued we were just discussing guns.
Because it is simply a fact. The objects you claim are tools and claim are morally justifiable in light of firearms, were originally developed for murdering people. I'll say it again, pointy things were originally a weapon, and used to commit murder. Since then humans have gained more wherewithal and killing things with these objects is quite rare in comparison to their more common uses. Same with GGGUUUUUUNNS. By calling these pointy things tools, you automatically give firearms the same label without intending to, since they were both developed for the same reasons. To kill. Whether that be killing food, or other people.
:facepalm: I said a kitchen knife is not primarily used as a weapon today. What it was used for by "cavemen" is irrelevant. A gun is still a weapon. A kitchen knife (today) is mainly used to cut food. A gun is a weapon, end of.
-
It doesn't seem to work that way in the US
HAH! GOTCHA. I have some bad news, adam. Countless studies conclude that in areas where it is legal to have concealed carry and such and there aren't any militant anti gun policies result in violent crime almost disappearing. Need I show you? Do we really need to rub this in?
Also quote quoted, and bolded so you can't miss it. Welcome to reality.
Violent crime is "almost disappearing" in areas where people have guns?
-
Seems? Does it or doesn't it?
it does...
If you write 'seems like' people might do research.
Louisiana just passed a bill that nullifies all gun control legislation. Now convicted felons can buy guns.
There should of course be no gun control at all. The founders of the US never intended any limits on gun ownership.
Aside from that owning guns is a natural right. You simply have the moral right to own a gun, period.
-
On that note:
Ordinary people will do fucked up things when fucked up things become ordinary.
Lets give everybody a gun, promote competition through capitalism and nullify the government and laws. Volunteerism....what could go wrong?
How could it possibly go more wrong than it is today?
It is incredible that most people don't understand that 99% of the things that are wrong on this planet is because of the state. They think that this is bad but that it would be 1000 times worse without a government. But anarchy works perfectly if the society is just small enough.
Comprising one person, maybe.
Last I checked, the population was more than one.
Modern Times (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brentwood,_New_York)
I have posted this before. Why do you keep denying it? When Brentwood was Modern Times, they had no cops, no courts and no crimes. Everyone signed a social contract, a real one on paper, not a false imaginary one. Everyone followed the rules voluntarily.
Initially, no system of authority existed in the colony; there were no courts, jails or police. This appears to have given some credence to Warren's theories that the most significant cause of violence in society was most attributable to policies and law which did not allow complete individuality in person and property. However, the modest population of the colony might be considered a factor in this characteristic.
We have been through this before, Lit. It doesn't work.
It does, if the society is small enough. Every nation state should be split up to about parish level. With a population of just a few hundred or at most a few thousand people it would work.
-
Do you think we should all be allowed military helicopters, missiles and grenades too? Because, let's face it, with nothing but your rifle, you#re gonna do FUCK ALL to the government.
They won't allow me to have Tomahawk missiles or nukes. :(
Because they are crooks and know it. They fear citizens who can give them what they deserve :arrr: :arrr: :arrr:
-
Do you think we should all be allowed military helicopters, missiles and grenades too? Because, let's face it, with nothing but your rifle, you#re gonna do FUCK ALL to the government.
Of course. Why should the military have monopoly on those weapons?
Because then the current gun-related statistics would be dwarfed by some really big numbers involving "Tomahawk-related accidents in the home", "school bombings involving nukes" and the like.
I think it happens that the responsible US military bombs schools, not in the US but in Afghanistan etc. And you know what happens in Syria right now.
-
Let say you take down the government, don't you think you would be paving a way for mafia style operations? There is always gonna be people who take charge. It is human nature.
Who's bitch do you wanna be?
-
Let say you take down the government, don't you think you would be paving a way for mafia style operations? There is always gonna be people who take charge. It is human nature.
Who's bitch do you wanna be?
This is the way of thinking that makes the state triumph. If everyone is armed, they can of course defend themselves against the mafia. In the state you can not defend yourself against the mafia because of the state monopoly on violence! Private citizens can't eradicate the mafia in a state.
You should read Spooner: Natural Law (http://lysanderspooner.org/node/59)
"A TREATISE ON NATURAL LAW, NATURAL JUSTICE,
NATURAL RIGHTS, NATURAL LIBERTY, AND
NATURAL SOCIETY; SHOWING THAT
ALL LEGISLATION WHATSOEVER IS AN ABSURDITY,
A USURPATION, AND A CRIME."
:viking:
-
I think people would gang up. The bigger ones would rule. It doesn't sound 'fun' to me.
If people weren't such natural arseholes it might work. People are poo.
-
I think people would gang up. The bigger ones would rule. It doesn't sound 'fun' to me.
If people weren't such natural arseholes it might work. People are poo.
even the police have learned not to cut off the head of a street gang. In the past they would go after the big fish. Jail the leader.
As it is such a violent business, usually the most brutal and violent becomes the new leader. And that reflects in all the gangs operations...
Now, they just like to keep the head guy in check. Comfort usually takes over and attrition.
-
Seems? Does it or doesn't it?
it does...
If you write 'seems like' people might do research.
Louisiana just passed a bill that nullifies all gun control legislation. Now convicted felons can buy guns.
Convicted felons can get a gun whether or not it is legal if they are up to no good. Also, convicted felon is a broad term. What crimes does it cover? Are all convicted felons even guilty of their charges? Does convicted felon mean you are a lesser person, even if you've proven yourself rehabilitated?
you just took a crap and named it after me. Aw, poop.
-
It doesn't seem to work that way in the US
HAH! GOTCHA. I have some bad news, adam. Countless studies conclude that in areas where it is legal to have concealed carry and such and there aren't any militant anti gun policies result in violent crime almost disappearing. Need I show you? Do we really need to rub this in?
Also quote quoted, and bolded so you can't miss it. Welcome to reality.
Violent crime is "almost disappearing" in areas where people have guns?
Yep. Challenge me on it.
-
I think people would gang up. The bigger ones would rule. It doesn't sound 'fun' to me.
If people weren't such natural arseholes it might work. People are poo.
Correct. People are poo, and government is comprised of people. By giving more power to a smaller group of these poo people, they have an easier time abusing it. And they will because they are poo.
Russia Today Declares 9/11 Was An Inside Job! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ugCIjzHptA#)
-
Oh now what the fuck. I come back, read back a bit, and what do I see? Dodging, attempts to derail, etc. What a bunch of pussies.
Odeon-
Innocent, like a teenager returning home late. Accidents involving guns in the home are quite common.
Are you familiar with the statistics on that, sir? Accidental shootings are far less common than criminals murdering people with guns. Mostly black on black crime, too. Passing laws will stop that, right? :LOL:
Did you need help finding this information? I would be glad to do that.
I won't feed your circle jerk, then. I bet that you'd dismiss every example I'd produce as someone not giving "110%". What's the bloody point?
I do not see the connection with a cop not performing his duties and you debating gun ownership. Please explain.
If you actually read the thread instead of giving in to the knee-jerk, you will note that this thread is yet another example of the usual I2 gun law debate, which gives it a context in which both our replies should be read.
It does indeed. I've noticed people have a habit of skimming my posts. Maybe they don't like what I have to say? And they think they can "boycott" those things? Because of bias and feels?
The thread is not titled "the things I actually need to overthrow the government".
I take great relish in saying I didn't start this little mess, Odeon. Adam did.
I've said time and again that you need a lot more than guns if you want to realistically overthrow a corrupt government, which is the raison d'etre for the 2d amendment and what you people will frequently refer to when wanting to keep your guns, whatever the cost.
I believe I made three posts detailing why guns are the backbone of an armed revolt. Very detailed posts. Of course much more is required than guns, but without guns? Impossible, and you know it, good sir. Please fully read my posts if you'd like to debate me.
Adam-
What do you want me to say? I simply feel much more comfortable knowing my neighbours haven't all got rifles in their houses.
You said enough there.
I simply feel much more comfortable
I simply feel
Yeah. You can take your feels, and shove them right up your nosey ass, Adam. What your neighbors have in their houses? None of your fucking business.
Ok so what else is this about then? I assmued we were just discussing guns.
And I used part of your overall character as weight in my argument. You are not only against gun ownership. You are against a lot of things, and much like the church of old you and your crowd think you have the right to tell other people how they should think and conduct themselves. And that it should be MADE LAW FOR ALL! Tch! Fuck you and your new religion. You might call yourself secular, but I call you a fanatic.
:facepalm: I said a kitchen knife is not primarily used as a weapon today. What it was used for by "cavemen" is irrelevant. A gun is still a weapon. A kitchen knife (today) is mainly used to cut food. A gun is a weapon, end of.
A kitchen knife is the only kind of knife, eh? That's ALL you can think of? I'm not going to ask you do do any research on that, because I know you won't retain any information that doesn't tie in with your zealous view.
What it was used for by "cavemen" is irrelevant.
Why is that? You do know that "cavemen" were basically modern humans right? I think that's pretty relevant, man.
A gun is still a weapon. A kitchen knife (today) is mainly used to cut food. A gun is a weapon, end of.
Ok man I don't like having to point this out, but i'm thinking maybe I can shake you awake, here. Look at the above post. You stated your intent twice and sandwiched a divisive sentence fragment(also a thought fragment), in between. A kitchen knife is not the only type of knife used by human beings, and yes I mean today. Open your mind.
-
Adam doesn't have the right spirit! :arrr:
I'm starting to think he actually doesn't understand these concepts, Lit. I've seen that the guy is pretty into activism, and seems to really care about humanity. Seems like the right "spirit" to me. Maybe he -really- doesn't get it. :dunno:
Or maybe, oh, I dunno, he does but you don't. What makes you so certain that you are right?
Because his points aren't holding up. I am defeating them, as i'm sure even anti-gun folk in here will point out. The honest ones anyway.
-
You are being extremely close-minded, Adam. Its like arguing with a religious zealot. Did you know that knives and pointy shaped things WERE originally designed to kill things? They have since become tools to be used for safety and utility.
Really?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oldowan#The_tools
I'm going to have to ask you to be more clear.
-
This may be helpful.
Revolution: An Instruction Manual (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Zq4f6WYmHU#ws)
-
I will make one more jab, here. It is ridiculous to first come in and make claims, then act the victim when those claims are challenged. It is ridiculous to act as if it is a personal insult when the challenges of these claims hold weight. THIS is the main problem I have with the crowd that usually tends to be anti-gun, feminist, "atheist", etc. These people call themselves "progressive" usually and go through the motions of activism, but only because it is trending. I think the majority of you people care about appearances, and your heart is completely empty. I think you have been robbed of most of your humanity.
I didn't start this giant argument, Adam did. But i'll damn sure finish it. I'll finish the FUCK out of it.
-
Seems? Does it or doesn't it?
it does...
If you write 'seems like' people might do research.
Louisiana just passed a bill that nullifies all gun control legislation. Now convicted felons can buy guns.
Convicted felons can get a gun whether or not it is legal if they are up to no good. Also, convicted felon is a broad term. What crimes does it cover? Are all convicted felons even guilty of their charges? Does convicted felon mean you are a lesser person, even if you've proven yourself rehabilitated?
you just took a crap and named it after me. Aw, poop.
Lovely odor. :poop:
-
Years ago in Australia, we had an insane man get hold of a gun and have a monumental shoot up. Killed a lot of people.
The government had a law against owning of guns ut in place and a massive buy back scheme. Worked well.
Really helped with gun crime here.
So now can I extrapolate this Australian experience to America? I don't think so. I can say what worked here worked well and for all the right reasons and has been better for us. Because of the US Constitution, the size in population, the culture, the constant state of fear fed to Americans by the media, and for a multitude of other reasons, I do not think Australian solutions will work.
-
Well said.
-
Seems? Does it or doesn't it?
it does...
If you write 'seems like' people might do research.
Louisiana just passed a bill that nullifies all gun control legislation. Now convicted felons can buy guns.
There should of course be no gun control at all. The founders of the US never intended any limits on gun ownership.
Aside from that owning guns is a natural right. You simply have the moral right to own a gun, period.
Moral
Adjective
Concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character.
Er, no.
-
On that note:
Ordinary people will do fucked up things when fucked up things become ordinary.
Lets give everybody a gun, promote competition through capitalism and nullify the government and laws. Volunteerism....what could go wrong?
How could it possibly go more wrong than it is today?
It is incredible that most people don't understand that 99% of the things that are wrong on this planet is because of the state. They think that this is bad but that it would be 1000 times worse without a government. But anarchy works perfectly if the society is just small enough.
Comprising one person, maybe.
Last I checked, the population was more than one.
Modern Times (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brentwood,_New_York)
I have posted this before. Why do you keep denying it? When Brentwood was Modern Times, they had no cops, no courts and no crimes. Everyone signed a social contract, a real one on paper, not a false imaginary one. Everyone followed the rules voluntarily.
Initially, no system of authority existed in the colony; there were no courts, jails or police. This appears to have given some credence to Warren's theories that the most significant cause of violence in society was most attributable to policies and law which did not allow complete individuality in person and property. However, the modest population of the colony might be considered a factor in this characteristic.
We have been through this before, Lit. It doesn't work.
It does, if the society is small enough. Every nation state should be split up to about parish level. With a population of just a few hundred or at most a few thousand people it would work.
History disagrees with you.
And how would you go about to split up the nations?
-
Do you think we should all be allowed military helicopters, missiles and grenades too? Because, let's face it, with nothing but your rifle, you#re gonna do FUCK ALL to the government.
Of course. Why should the military have monopoly on those weapons?
Because then the current gun-related statistics would be dwarfed by some really big numbers involving "Tomahawk-related accidents in the home", "school bombings involving nukes" and the like.
I think it happens that the responsible US military bombs schools, not in the US but in Afghanistan etc. And you know what happens in Syria right now.
Sarin gas to everybody!!! :arrr:
-
Let say you take down the government, don't you think you would be paving a way for mafia style operations? There is always gonna be people who take charge. It is human nature.
Who's bitch do you wanna be?
Monty Python - Army Protection Racket (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRm5WcjOikQ#)
-
Oh now what the fuck. I come back, read back a bit, and what do I see? Dodging, attempts to derail, etc. What a bunch of pussies.
Odeon-
Innocent, like a teenager returning home late. Accidents involving guns in the home are quite common.
Are you familiar with the statistics on that, sir? Accidental shootings are far less common than criminals murdering people with guns. Mostly black on black crime, too. Passing laws will stop that, right? :LOL:
Did you need help finding this information? I would be glad to do that.
It's such a relief that accidental shootings do not dominate the statistics.
But incidentally, where did I claim they did?
I won't feed your circle jerk, then. I bet that you'd dismiss every example I'd produce as someone not giving "110%". What's the bloody point?
I do not see the connection with a cop not performing his duties and you debating gun ownership. Please explain.
???
Do you have a reading comprehension problem, Rage? Put the above in context and explain to me what you didn't understand. If you catch me in the right mood I may attempt to rephrase for your benefit.
If you actually read the thread instead of giving in to the knee-jerk, you will note that this thread is yet another example of the usual I2 gun law debate, which gives it a context in which both our replies should be read.
It does indeed. I've noticed people have a habit of skimming my posts. Maybe they don't like what I have to say? And they think they can "boycott" those things? Because of bias and feels?
The thread is not titled "the things I actually need to overthrow the government".
I take great relish in saying I didn't start this little mess, Odeon. Adam did.
No, he didn't. Adam commented on an existing mess. You opposed his views.
I've said time and again that you need a lot more than guns if you want to realistically overthrow a corrupt government, which is the raison d'etre for the 2d amendment and what you people will frequently refer to when wanting to keep your guns, whatever the cost.
I believe I made three posts detailing why guns are the backbone of an armed revolt. Very detailed posts. Of course much more is required than guns, but without guns? Impossible, and you know it, good sir. Please fully read my posts if you'd like to debate me.
Then why are you bringing it up in a thread discussing questionable ideas in Iowa?
The only reason this whole overthrowing the government idiocy came up is because 'mericans will always bring up the 2d amendment if somebody questions the "right" to carry a gun.
Didn't there use to be text in your constitution about people held for labour in one state not be allowed to be freed by the laws of another? You overcame that little problem in the constitution, eventually. Gives me some hope that you might eventually see that carrying a weapon should not be a right, no matter what.
It amuses me that carrying a gun should be regarded as a right when equal health care to all is not.
-
Adam doesn't have the right spirit! :arrr:
I'm starting to think he actually doesn't understand these concepts, Lit. I've seen that the guy is pretty into activism, and seems to really care about humanity. Seems like the right "spirit" to me. Maybe he -really- doesn't get it. :dunno:
Or maybe, oh, I dunno, he does but you don't. What makes you so certain that you are right?
Because his points aren't holding up. I am defeating them, as i'm sure even anti-gun folk in here will point out. The honest ones anyway.
No, you are not. Why would you think you are? I mean, objectively?
-
You are being extremely close-minded, Adam. Its like arguing with a religious zealot. Did you know that knives and pointy shaped things WERE originally designed to kill things? They have since become tools to be used for safety and utility.
Really?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oldowan#The_tools
I'm going to have to ask you to be more clear.
The Oldowan tools are among the oldest known. It is not clear what their primary use was or why they happened in the first place.
-
I will make one more jab, here. It is ridiculous to first come in and make claims, then act the victim when those claims are challenged. It is ridiculous to act as if it is a personal insult when the challenges of these claims hold weight. THIS is the main problem I have with the crowd that usually tends to be anti-gun, feminist, "atheist", etc. These people call themselves "progressive" usually and go through the motions of activism, but only because it is trending. I think the majority of you people care about appearances, and your heart is completely empty. I think you have been robbed of most of your humanity.
I didn't start this giant argument, Adam did. But i'll damn sure finish it. I'll finish the FUCK out of it.
This makes no sense to me, Rage.
When addressing a claim, attack the claim, not the person who made it. Why do you imply that opposing guns is not progressive? Why do you imply that the people opposing guns have empty hearts?
-
Seems? Does it or doesn't it?
it does...
If you write 'seems like' people might do research.
Louisiana just passed a bill that nullifies all gun control legislation. Now convicted felons can buy guns.
There should of course be no gun control at all. The founders of the US never intended any limits on gun ownership.
Aside from that owning guns is a natural right. You simply have the moral right to own a gun, period.
Moral
Adjective
Concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character.
Er, no.
Read what Spooner says about natural law. I posted a link.
Although Spooner says that you shouldn't give a weapon to a madman, he also says that all legislation is a crime. Ergo it is criminal to deny anyone the mere possession of anything. Morally criminal, of course.
You have the moral right to do anything that isn't malum in se. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malum_in_se) Yet most of the state's laws are about things that are only malum prohibitum. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malum_prohibitum) This is because the state's laws have nothing to do with moral justice but on the contrary are there to deny you your natural rights to keep its own power.
-
On that note:
Ordinary people will do fucked up things when fucked up things become ordinary.
Lets give everybody a gun, promote competition through capitalism and nullify the government and laws. Volunteerism....what could go wrong?
How could it possibly go more wrong than it is today?
It is incredible that most people don't understand that 99% of the things that are wrong on this planet is because of the state. They think that this is bad but that it would be 1000 times worse without a government. But anarchy works perfectly if the society is just small enough.
Comprising one person, maybe.
Last I checked, the population was more than one.
Modern Times (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brentwood,_New_York)
I have posted this before. Why do you keep denying it? When Brentwood was Modern Times, they had no cops, no courts and no crimes. Everyone signed a social contract, a real one on paper, not a false imaginary one. Everyone followed the rules voluntarily.
Initially, no system of authority existed in the colony; there were no courts, jails or police. This appears to have given some credence to Warren's theories that the most significant cause of violence in society was most attributable to policies and law which did not allow complete individuality in person and property. However, the modest population of the colony might be considered a factor in this characteristic.
We have been through this before, Lit. It doesn't work.
It does, if the society is small enough. Every nation state should be split up to about parish level. With a population of just a few hundred or at most a few thousand people it would work.
History disagrees with you.
And how would you go about to split up the nations?
"History" said for many thousands of years that there was no way to get rid of racism, slavery, marital rape, homophobia etc. Most people in charge were actually for those things.
The nations would be split up be people refusing to obey all laws, refusing to pay tax, refusing to obey authorities etc. The nations only exist because people obey.
The thing is that 99.99% of all people today are brainwashed idiots. They don't even use the legal system as they could. I have calculated that you could even stop the Swedish courts from functioning if everyone who got a speed ticket denied to accept it but took it to court instead. But do they do it? No.
-
I will make one more jab, here. It is ridiculous to first come in and make claims, then act the victim when those claims are challenged. It is ridiculous to act as if it is a personal insult when the challenges of these claims hold weight. THIS is the main problem I have with the crowd that usually tends to be anti-gun, feminist, "atheist", etc. These people call themselves "progressive" usually and go through the motions of activism, but only because it is trending. I think the majority of you people care about appearances, and your heart is completely empty. I think you have been robbed of most of your humanity.
I didn't start this giant argument, Adam did. But i'll damn sure finish it. I'll finish the FUCK out of it.
This makes no sense to me, Rage.
When addressing a claim, attack the claim, not the person who made it. Why do you imply that opposing guns is not progressive? Why do you imply that the people opposing guns have empty hearts?
Because they are willing to "experiment" with peoples lives in order to see if their "good ideas" will work. Namely, introduce boycotting methods instead of conducting research into the causes of the violence they oppose and using that knowledge to actually try and fix the problem.
That's empty hearted.
-
It's also not intellectual, since gun ownership is a natural right :M
-
No, he didn't. Adam commented on an existing mess. You opposed his views.
Did he now?
So, what, Obama is pro-gun laws because he's scared of people like you guys and your guns?
lol
ok
you try taking on the US government with your rifles
::) If you think this isn't blatantly challenging and disrespectful, then take your cultural bias and shove it up your ass. Moving on.
The Oldowan tools are among the oldest known. It is not clear what their primary use was or why they happened in the first place.
Oldest tools known. Exactly. So common sense tells you that those tools are all they had to kill each other and their food with. They didn't have plasma rifles, or orbital ion cannons. Or GUNS. :zoinks: Yes the made them to murder each other and animals with, not to clip their toenails or play the violin with.
No, you are not. Why would you think you are? I mean, objectively?
Because he has no counter. This means his argument didn't hold up. HUUUUR. :LOL:
It's such a relief that accidental shootings do not dominate the statistics.
But incidentally, where did I claim they did?
You did not claim they dominate the statistics, no. But you did claim:
Innocent, like a teenager returning home late. Accidents involving guns in the home are quite common.
Quite common? No they aren't. Its obvious you are not familiar with the numbers regarding this, but fortunately I am. Would you like some help?
Then why are you bringing it up in a thread discussing questionable ideas in Iowa?
I didn't. Adam did. See above, and and realize that you are condemning the backlash of someone saying stupid shit. Of course people would find it offensive and misguided of him to say something like that. Problem?
The only reason this whole overthrowing the government idiocy came up is because 'mericans will always bring up the 2d amendment if somebody questions the "right" to carry a gun.
Er, yeah. That's why it was put there. It doesn't matter if you approve of that or not, its in the American constitution and was put there for very good reasons.
It amuses me that carrying a gun should be regarded as a right when equal health care to all is not
It amuses me that you think any bank interest driven government will solve that for you. It amuses me that you would throw away the last thing actually protecting you with both hands.
Didn't there use to be text in your constitution about people held for labour in one state not be allowed to be freed by the laws of another? You overcame that little problem in the constitution, eventually. Gives me some hope that you might eventually see that carrying a weapon should not be a right, no matter what.
That law was taken out of context even back then. Can't say I blame you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indentured_servant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indentured_servant)
Do you have a reading comprehension problem, Rage? Put the above in context and explain to me what you didn't understand. If you catch me in the right mood I may attempt to rephrase for your benefit.
No need to get snippy with me, sir. I have not done so with you. And yes, I put it in context and it doesn't hold up.
-
Hahaha! omfg
Rage did you seriously just call me a fanatic becuase I am in favour of gun control?
So the vast majority of people in this country are fanatics? lol
and odeon, yeah, why is Rage so sure he's right? maybe it's cos he's a fanatic :laugh:
-
A kitchen knife is not the only knife
Yes
Ok
And?
I can't even remember where you were going with this tbh
anyway, a knife is VERY different to a gun. I'd rather take my chances against someone armed with a knife than someone armed with a gun
-
Also Rage, I think it's kinda funny that you think you can educate me and odeon on history by posting links to 5 minutes youtube videos
I read books, and if I recall correctly, so does odeon
Get off your high horse, mate ;)
-
btw, I think you'll find my comment here:
So, what, Obama is pro-gun laws because he's scared of people like you guys and your guns?
lol
ok
you try taking on the US government with your rifles
was in response to this:
The 2nd Amendment was for defending you against people like Obama. Just sayin'.
Obvious to anyone with any kind of common sense. Trouble is, my country is filled to the brim with a bunch of dumbasses who aren't even able to think.
-
Seems? Does it or doesn't it?
it does...
If you write 'seems like' people might do research.
Louisiana just passed a bill that nullifies all gun control legislation. Now convicted felons can buy guns.
There should of course be no gun control at all. The founders of the US never intended any limits on gun ownership.
Aside from that owning guns is a natural right. You simply have the moral right to own a gun, period.
Moral
Adjective
Concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character.
Er, no.
Read what Spooner says about natural law. I posted a link.
Although Spooner says that you shouldn't give a weapon to a madman, he also says that all legislation is a crime. Ergo it is criminal to deny anyone the mere possession of anything. Morally criminal, of course.
You have the moral right to do anything that isn't malum in se. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malum_in_se) Yet most of the state's laws are about things that are only malum prohibitum. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malum_prohibitum) This is because the state's laws have nothing to do with moral justice but on the contrary are there to deny you your natural rights to keep its own power.
IF Spooner is right.
Which he isn't. Next.
-
On that note:
Ordinary people will do fucked up things when fucked up things become ordinary.
Lets give everybody a gun, promote competition through capitalism and nullify the government and laws. Volunteerism....what could go wrong?
How could it possibly go more wrong than it is today?
It is incredible that most people don't understand that 99% of the things that are wrong on this planet is because of the state. They think that this is bad but that it would be 1000 times worse without a government. But anarchy works perfectly if the society is just small enough.
Comprising one person, maybe.
Last I checked, the population was more than one.
Modern Times (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brentwood,_New_York)
I have posted this before. Why do you keep denying it? When Brentwood was Modern Times, they had no cops, no courts and no crimes. Everyone signed a social contract, a real one on paper, not a false imaginary one. Everyone followed the rules voluntarily.
Initially, no system of authority existed in the colony; there were no courts, jails or police. This appears to have given some credence to Warren's theories that the most significant cause of violence in society was most attributable to policies and law which did not allow complete individuality in person and property. However, the modest population of the colony might be considered a factor in this characteristic.
We have been through this before, Lit. It doesn't work.
It does, if the society is small enough. Every nation state should be split up to about parish level. With a population of just a few hundred or at most a few thousand people it would work.
History disagrees with you.
And how would you go about to split up the nations?
"History" said for many thousands of years that there was no way to get rid of racism, slavery, marital rape, homophobia etc. Most people in charge were actually for those things.
The nations would be split up be people refusing to obey all laws, refusing to pay tax, refusing to obey authorities etc. The nations only exist because people obey.
The thing is that 99.99% of all people today are brainwashed idiots. They don't even use the legal system as they could. I have calculated that you could even stop the Swedish courts from functioning if everyone who got a speed ticket denied to accept it but took it to court instead. But do they do it? No.
"History" might prove me wrong, of course, but I seriously doubt it.
-
I will make one more jab, here. It is ridiculous to first come in and make claims, then act the victim when those claims are challenged. It is ridiculous to act as if it is a personal insult when the challenges of these claims hold weight. THIS is the main problem I have with the crowd that usually tends to be anti-gun, feminist, "atheist", etc. These people call themselves "progressive" usually and go through the motions of activism, but only because it is trending. I think the majority of you people care about appearances, and your heart is completely empty. I think you have been robbed of most of your humanity.
I didn't start this giant argument, Adam did. But i'll damn sure finish it. I'll finish the FUCK out of it.
This makes no sense to me, Rage.
When addressing a claim, attack the claim, not the person who made it. Why do you imply that opposing guns is not progressive? Why do you imply that the people opposing guns have empty hearts?
Because they are willing to "experiment" with peoples lives in order to see if their "good ideas" will work. Namely, introduce boycotting methods instead of conducting research into the causes of the violence they oppose and using that knowledge to actually try and fix the problem.
That's empty hearted.
Tell me you're fucking joking with me. The people *opposing* guns are willing to experiment with people's lives while those in favour are not? That's a stretch, even by your logic.
Should I remind you that the NRA has effectively been able to block a lot of research into gun-related violence?
-
No, he didn't. Adam commented on an existing mess. You opposed his views.
Did he now?
So, what, Obama is pro-gun laws because he's scared of people like you guys and your guns?
lol
ok
you try taking on the US government with your rifles
::) If you think this isn't blatantly challenging and disrespectful, then take your cultural bias and shove it up your ass. Moving on.
He very clearly commented on an existing mess. Next.
The Oldowan tools are among the oldest known. It is not clear what their primary use was or why they happened in the first place.
Oldest tools known. Exactly. So common sense tells you that those tools are all they had to kill each other and their food with. They didn't have plasma rifles, or orbital ion cannons. Or GUNS. :zoinks: Yes the made them to murder each other and animals with, not to clip their toenails or play the violin with.
You are implying that your common sense knows something about why these tools were created that the researches do not? Right.
Next.
No, you are not. Why would you think you are? I mean, objectively?
Because he has no counter. This means his argument didn't hold up. HUUUUR. :LOL:
Logic fail. You are not the one to decide. Next.
It's such a relief that accidental shootings do not dominate the statistics.
But incidentally, where did I claim they did?
You did not claim they dominate the statistics, no. But you did claim:
Innocent, like a teenager returning home late. Accidents involving guns in the home are quite common.
Quite common? No they aren't. Its obvious you are not familiar with the numbers regarding this, but fortunately I am. Would you like some help?
Here's an example (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9715182) of a study Of the 626 shootings in or around the home, 54 were unintentional.
How would you label those 54? Collateral damage?
Next.
Then why are you bringing it up in a thread discussing questionable ideas in Iowa?
I didn't. Adam did. See above, and and realize that you are condemning the backlash of someone saying stupid shit. Of course people would find it offensive and misguided of him to say something like that. Problem?
Debatable but I can see your point. You make it sound like Adam changed the subject but your earlier quote suggests to me that he didn't. Next.
The only reason this whole overthrowing the government idiocy came up is because 'mericans will always bring up the 2d amendment if somebody questions the "right" to carry a gun.
Er, yeah. That's why it was put there. It doesn't matter if you approve of that or not, its in the American constitution and was put there for very good reasons.
Because it is in there, it is there for a good reason? Logic fail. Next.
It amuses me that carrying a gun should be regarded as a right when equal health care to all is not
It amuses me that you think any bank interest driven government will solve that for you. It amuses me that you would throw away the last thing actually protecting you with both hands.
Who is changing the subject now? "Bank interest driven government"? Subtle. I'm still interested in why you don't seem to think that equal health care should not be a right when gun ownership is.
Didn't there use to be text in your constitution about people held for labour in one state not be allowed to be freed by the laws of another? You overcame that little problem in the constitution, eventually. Gives me some hope that you might eventually see that carrying a weapon should not be a right, no matter what.
That law was taken out of context even back then. Can't say I blame you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indentured_servant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indentured_servant)
Gee, I wonder why the 13th amendment was deemed necessary and fought so bitterly?
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/thirteenthamendment.html (http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/thirteenthamendment.html)
Do you have a reading comprehension problem, Rage? Put the above in context and explain to me what you didn't understand. If you catch me in the right mood I may attempt to rephrase for your benefit.
No need to get snippy with me, sir. I have not done so with you. And yes, I put it in context and it doesn't hold up.
It's OK for you to say that people who do not agree with you are empty-hearted, but not OK for me to question your reading comprehension?
You set the stage, now live with it.
-
Hahaha! omfg
Rage did you seriously just call me a fanatic becuase I am in favour of gun control?
So the vast majority of people in this country are fanatics? lol
and odeon, yeah, why is Rage so sure he's right? maybe it's cos he's a fanatic :laugh:
Fanatics are rarely fanatics in their own minds.
-
Also Rage, I think it's kinda funny that you think you can educate me and odeon on history by posting links to 5 minutes youtube videos
I read books, and if I recall correctly, so does odeon
Get off your high horse, mate ;)
It is amusing, yes.
As for horses... :deadhorse:
-
A kitchen knife is not the only knife
Yes
Ok
And?
I can't even remember where you were going with this tbh
anyway, a knife is VERY different to a gun. I'd rather take my chances against someone armed with a knife than someone armed with a gun
You don't have a chance against a guy with a knife either, unless you have a knife yourself. You must be a karate expert or similar to defend yourself without any kind of weapon against a knifeman. But that's the kind of situation you want, obviously, since you are not for the right to carry weapons.
-
Seems? Does it or doesn't it?
it does...
If you write 'seems like' people might do research.
Louisiana just passed a bill that nullifies all gun control legislation. Now convicted felons can buy guns.
There should of course be no gun control at all. The founders of the US never intended any limits on gun ownership.
Aside from that owning guns is a natural right. You simply have the moral right to own a gun, period.
Moral
Adjective
Concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character.
Er, no.
Read what Spooner says about natural law. I posted a link.
Although Spooner says that you shouldn't give a weapon to a madman, he also says that all legislation is a crime. Ergo it is criminal to deny anyone the mere possession of anything. Morally criminal, of course.
You have the moral right to do anything that isn't malum in se. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malum_in_se) Yet most of the state's laws are about things that are only malum prohibitum. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malum_prohibitum) This is because the state's laws have nothing to do with moral justice but on the contrary are there to deny you your natural rights to keep its own power.
IF Spooner is right.
Which he isn't. Next.
Of course you read the link and studied his arguments ::)
-
Hahaha! omfg
Rage did you seriously just call me a fanatic becuase I am in favour of gun control?
So the vast majority of people in this country are fanatics? lol
and odeon, yeah, why is Rage so sure he's right? maybe it's cos he's a fanatic :laugh:
You are brainwashed, just like the majority of the sheeple in the UK and in Sweden too. Even odeon is brainwashed, so it has not only to do with the lack of intelligence. It's a kind of double bind. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_bind)
-
Tell me you're fucking joking with me. The people *opposing* guns are willing to experiment with people's lives while those in favour are not? That's a stretch, even by your logic.
It's not. Those in favour of guns want you to be able to defend yourself. Those opposing them obviously want you to be defenceless. How would you defend yourself from a 120 kilo robber or burglar in Sweden? Even with a gun it would be tricky, since the cunts in court would question your right to defend yourself even in your own bedrooom 2 o'clock in the morning.
Those cunts who made those laws usually have armed bodyguards and/or live in a very safe neighbourhood. The similar usually goes for the cunts upholding those laws in court.
But this is just a side effect. Gun control is so that it would be very hard or impossible to defend yourself from the state. The gun law isn't there so that a school shooter shall not be able to massacre kids. It's there so that the state should easily be able to massacre ordinary people. Like here:
Ådalen 31 - skotten (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYhsPx10Kls#)
-
Tell me you're fucking joking with me. The people *opposing* guns are willing to experiment with people's lives while those in favour are not? That's a stretch, even by your logic.
It's not. Those in favour of guns want you to be able to defend yourself. Those opposing them obviously want you to be defenceless. How would you defend yourself from a 120 kilo robber or burglar in Sweden? Even with a gun it would be tricky, since the cunts in court would question your right to defend yourself even in your own bedrooom 2 o'clock in the morning.
Those cunts who made those laws usually have armed bodyguards and/or live in a very safe neighbourhood. The similar usually goes for the cunts upholding those laws in court.
If banning firesarms works, why oh why would they need armed guards7
-
Tell me you're fucking joking with me. The people *opposing* guns are willing to experiment with people's lives while those in favour are not? That's a stretch, even by your logic.
It's not. Those in favour of guns want you to be able to defend yourself. Those opposing them obviously want you to be defenceless. How would you defend yourself from a 120 kilo robber or burglar in Sweden? Even with a gun it would be tricky, since the cunts in court would question your right to defend yourself even in your own bedrooom 2 o'clock in the morning.
Those cunts who made those laws usually have armed bodyguards and/or live in a very safe neighbourhood. The similar usually goes for the cunts upholding those laws in court.
If banning firesarms works, why oh why would they need armed guards7
Exactly my question :plus:
-
Odeon-
He very clearly commented on an existing mess. Next.
How convenient that everyone hates my country right now, giving everyone an excuse to talk shit about it as much as they like. Contributing to that really helps. Thanks a lot, Adam and Odeon.
You are implying that your common sense knows something about why these tools were created that the researches do not? Right.
Its not rocket science, man.
Logic fail. You are not the one to decide. Next.
I can decide whatever I want. And I decide that yes, I crushed him. He only returned when you came and "stood up" to the evil realist, days later.
Here's an example of a study Of the 626 shootings in or around the home, 54 were unintentional.
How would you label those 54? Collateral damage?
Next.
Here is something that causes a lot more deaths. Hospitals, and medical error. http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/11856.php (http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/11856.php) Whats your excuse for 195,000 deaths a year? Accidents happen? Well then that's my excuse too. Heres another fact: Guns save about a hundred times more lives than criminals manage to take. ;) You want to play with numbers huh? I can do that too.
You make it sound like Adam changed the subject but your earlier
Adam turned it into a gun control debate, and took it to the "U CAN'T REBEL AGAINST GUBMINT" level, not me.
Because it is in there, it is there for a good reason? Logic fail. Next.
Hah! I think most americans agree with me, which is why gun bans have failed so far. This is -their- country, after all.
Who is changing the subject now? "Bank interest driven government"? Subtle. I'm still interested in why you don't seem to think that equal health care should not be a right when gun ownership is.
Because health care is something you work for, and rights are defended with your gun.
Gee, I wonder why the 13th amendment was deemed necessary and fought so bitterly?
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/thirteenthamendment.html (http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/thirteenthamendment.html)
The thirteenth amendment was taken out of context back then to make slavery okay, and even after being abolished and all these years its still being used the same way. *hint*
It's OK for you to say that people who do not agree with you are empty-hearted, but not OK for me to question your reading comprehension?
You set the stage, now live with it.
I didn't say that people who disagree with me are empty hearted. You are taking things out of context to be divisive. Won't work on me.
Tell me you're fucking joking with me. The people *opposing* guns are willing to experiment with people's lives while those in favour are not? That's a stretch, even by your logic.
Should I remind you that the NRA has effectively been able to block a lot of research into gun-related violence?
So since the EVIL NRA has engaged in conspiracy and blocked this heroic research, we should still go ahead and immediately change things around anyway without knowing what will happen because our feelings. That's a stretch, even by your logic.
Adam-
Also Rage, I think it's kinda funny that you think you can educate me and odeon on history by posting links to 5 minutes youtube videos
I read books, and if I recall correctly, so does odeon
Get off your high horse, mate ;)
That youtube video must be a damnsight better than whatever drivel you've been reading, or I would not have been concerned. Also, your business with me has nothing to do with Odeon. I'm handling him just fine, and i'll chase you off this issue a second time while debating him.
anyway, a knife is VERY different to a gun. I'd rather take my chances against someone armed with a knife than someone armed with a gun
I'd rather have a gun than my bare hands or a knife when someone has -any- kind of weapon and is trying to hurt me.
btw, I think you'll find my comment here:
So, what, Obama is pro-gun laws because he's scared of people like you guys and your guns?
lol
ok
you try taking on the US government with your rifles
was in response to this:
The 2nd Amendment was for defending you against people like Obama. Just sayin'.
Obvious to anyone with any kind of common sense. Trouble is, my country is filled to the brim with a bunch of dumbasses who aren't even able to think.
Key words there. MY COUNTRY. The one you aren't a resident of, piers morgan. ;)
Hahaha! omfg
Rage did you seriously just call me a fanatic becuase I am in favour of gun control?
So the vast majority of people in this country are fanatics? lol
and odeon, yeah, why is Rage so sure he's right? maybe it's cos he's a fanatic :laugh:
Rage did you seriously just call me a fanatic becuase I am in favour of gun control?
No, actually. Think about it a bit more.
So the vast majority of people in this country are fanatics? lol
No. Don't know where you're pulling that out of. :apondering:
and odeon, yeah, why is Rage so sure he's right? maybe it's cos he's a fanatic
That's funny to me. I'm not 100% sure i'm right, actually. But when I speak with people who think like you, it convinces me a bit more every time. At least odeon attempted to produce some numbers and such. How about you bring something to this instead of a bunch of fingerpointing and empty denial? If you are so eager to socially engineer the people of my country, and you are sure that you are justified in this, how about you actually convince me?
-
Rage, don't bother.
I thought you knew that your rights end where their feelings begin.
-
Rage, don't bother.
I thought you knew that your rights end where their feelings begin.
Hah, like hell. I'd rather be dead than live in a world like that. :LOL:
-
Rage, don't bother.
I thought you knew that your rights end where their feelings begin.
Hah, like hell. I'd rather be dead than live in a world like that. :LOL:
That is the world the gun control crowd thinks we live in.
Just remember, MUH FEELS
-
I'd say that 54 unintentional shootings out of 626 is pretty much, but that isn't anything that should be regulated by laws.
And such comparisons are stupid anyway. 80 Swedes are murdered each year. >8000 Swedes die of tobacco. Yet anyone age 18 can legally buy tobacco and it's not hard to get for minors either. But you don't hear an outcry like that about tobacco as you hear about guns.
And cars. 200 Swedes are killed by cars, but why allow people to drive then? They can go by bus or train, which will probably decrease the death tolls with 97-98%.
The greatest irony is that antigunners want to ban things that can protect themselves. I don't get why they want to be defenceless. What good is it if you are raped or murdered and the cops get the one who did it? You are still raped or dead. The cops can't protect you even if they wanted to. And they rarely even want to.
-
To be fair,
I think most other people around the world bash America because we keep bombing everybody and manipulating economies.
It doesn't help that we believe in 'American exceptionalism'....nobody loves the narcissist but himself.
America is the terrorist. There is blood all over our hands.
-
To be fair,
I think most other people around the world bash America because we keep bombing everybody and manipulating economies.
It doesn't help that we believe in 'American exceptionalism'....nobody loves the narcissist but himself.
America is the terrorist. There is blood all over our hands.
Yes. That is 99% of the reason that so many foreigners hate America.
-
Rage, don't bother.
I thought you knew that your rights end where their feelings begin.
Hah, like hell. I'd rather be dead than live in a world like that. :LOL:
That is the world the gun control crowd thinks we live in.
Just remember, MUH FEELS
Argh! m-muh feels!
-
To be fair,
I think most other people around the world bash America because we keep bombing everybody and manipulating economies.
It doesn't help that we believe in 'American exceptionalism'....nobody loves the narcissist but himself.
America is the terrorist. There is blood all over our hands.
Dude, that I can agree with and i'm sick of it too. For that very reason I think Obama is a shitface for continuing this pattern. I'm also sick of people from other countries making it worse though. I know my country is a piece of shit. I don't need to be constantly reminded of it, because i'm one of the few that's trying to do something about that. I especially don't need to be reminded of it by people that talk just like -this- dumbass:
(https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTi0Kyncc3t2YhPWbp6-UwxgXtRK_UijSxFM2eHf5VIyyad8u4G)
-
Oh and guns are illegal in Sweden, right? Guess what is?
Beach Masturbation Legal In Sweden | Watch Your Step! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xsc1snBEoxs#)
-
No, they are not illegal, they are just awfully hard to get legally, except for hunting rifles. And you can't carry a gun for self-defence legally. They will even question you if you use it in your own home.
That verdict seems pretty sound, though. He didn't hurt anyone, even if I think it's disgusting with a 65 year old jerking off in public.
-
No, they are not illegal, they are just awfully hard to get legally, except for hunting rifles. And you can't carry a gun for self-defence legally. They will even question you if you use it in your own home.
That verdict seems pretty sound, though. He didn't hurt anyone, even if I think it's disgusting with a 65 year old jerking off in public.
I'm just poking fun really, since my opponents aren't around when I am.
Heres a dude that isn't from America blasting gun control advocates. I like him.
Gun Control -- No matter what your opinion, you need to see this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZo4hbGJjVI#)
-
Gun Control - Watch What Happens When Guns Are Banned. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OyS3CEIbpJo#)
The results of Australia's Gun Ban:
Armed Robberies UP 69%
Assaults With Guns UP 28%
Gun Murders UP 19%
Home Invasions UP 21%
-
To be fair,
I think most other people around the world bash America because we keep bombing everybody and manipulating economies.
It doesn't help that we believe in 'American exceptionalism'....nobody loves the narcissist but himself.
America is the terrorist. There is blood all over our hands.
Dude, that I can agree with and i'm sick of it too. For that very reason I think Obama is a shitface for continuing this pattern. I'm also sick of people from other countries making it worse though. I know my country is a piece of shit. I don't need to be constantly reminded of it, because i'm one of the few that's trying to do something about that. I especially don't need to be reminded of it by people that talk just like -this- dumbass:
(https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTi0Kyncc3t2YhPWbp6-UwxgXtRK_UijSxFM2eHf5VIyyad8u4G)
actually, Obama threatens Syria and now we have a deal for them to put their chemical weapons under UN scrutiny.
Also, the new guy in Iran states he has no interest in nuclear capabilities.
All without a shot being fired.
Also, Afghanistan is almost over, Iraq is.
Obama is moving foreign relations in the right direction.
Perfect? No!
-
To be fair,
I think most other people around the world bash America because we keep bombing everybody and manipulating economies.
It doesn't help that we believe in 'American exceptionalism'....nobody loves the narcissist but himself.
America is the terrorist. There is blood all over our hands.
Dude, that I can agree with and i'm sick of it too. For that very reason I think Obama is a shitface for continuing this pattern. I'm also sick of people from other countries making it worse though. I know my country is a piece of shit. I don't need to be constantly reminded of it, because i'm one of the few that's trying to do something about that. I especially don't need to be reminded of it by people that talk just like -this- dumbass:
(https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTi0Kyncc3t2YhPWbp6-UwxgXtRK_UijSxFM2eHf5VIyyad8u4G)
actually, Obama threatens Syria and now we have a deal for them to put their chemical weapons under UN scrutiny.
Also, the new guy in Iran states he has no interest in nuclear capabilities.
All without a shot being fired.
Also, Afghanistan is almost over, Iraq is.
Obama is moving foreign relations in the right direction.
Perfect? No!
He didn't get to kill the shit out of middle eastern people because putin outwitted him.
-
A kitchen knife is not the only knife
Yes
Ok
And?
I can't even remember where you were going with this tbh
anyway, a knife is VERY different to a gun. I'd rather take my chances against someone armed with a knife than someone armed with a gun
You don't have a chance against a guy with a knife either, unless you have a knife yourself. You must be a karate expert or similar to defend yourself without any kind of weapon against a knifeman. But that's the kind of situation you want, obviously, since you are not for the right to carry weapons.
A man with a gun (an loaded gun, obviously) can do more damage before being disarmed than a man with a knife can.
Go into a school with a knife and you can maybe stab one person and then you'll be jumped to the floor. Go in with a gun and you can shoot a dozen people or more.
For a start, you have to actually be within reach of someone to kill them with a knife, unless you're some kind of knife-throwing circus act.
-
Tell me you're fucking joking with me. The people *opposing* guns are willing to experiment with people's lives while those in favour are not? That's a stretch, even by your logic.
It's not. Those in favour of guns want you to be able to defend yourself. Those opposing them obviously want you to be defenceless. How would you defend yourself from a 120 kilo robber or burglar in Sweden? Even with a gun it would be tricky, since the cunts in court would question your right to defend yourself even in your own bedrooom 2 o'clock in the morning.
Those cunts who made those laws usually have armed bodyguards and/or live in a very safe neighbourhood. The similar usually goes for the cunts upholding those laws in court.
If banning firesarms works, why oh why would they need armed guards7
There are always going to be isolated incidents. There's a reason why gun violence is much lower in countries without guns though.
Allow guns = kids accidentally shoot each other. man shoots his wife in a fit of rage. etc etc.
Ban guns = maybe some lunatic will get hold of one and try to assassinate someone etc, but it clearly isn't as bad
-
A kitchen knife is not the only knife
Yes
Ok
And?
I can't even remember where you were going with this tbh
anyway, a knife is VERY different to a gun. I'd rather take my chances against someone armed with a knife than someone armed with a gun
You don't have a chance against a guy with a knife either, unless you have a knife yourself. You must be a karate expert or similar to defend yourself without any kind of weapon against a knifeman. But that's the kind of situation you want, obviously, since you are not for the right to carry weapons.
A man with a gun (an loaded gun, obviously) can do more damage before being disarmed than a man with a knife can.
Go into a school with a knife and you can maybe stab one person and then you'll be jumped to the floor. Go in with a gun and you can shoot a dozen people or more.
For a start, you have to actually be within reach of someone to kill them with a knife, unless you're some kind of knife-throwing circus act.
I guess you never even were in a fistfight.
There was a Japanese guy killing 7 people with a knife in a school.
-
Tell me you're fucking joking with me. The people *opposing* guns are willing to experiment with people's lives while those in favour are not? That's a stretch, even by your logic.
It's not. Those in favour of guns want you to be able to defend yourself. Those opposing them obviously want you to be defenceless. How would you defend yourself from a 120 kilo robber or burglar in Sweden? Even with a gun it would be tricky, since the cunts in court would question your right to defend yourself even in your own bedrooom 2 o'clock in the morning.
Those cunts who made those laws usually have armed bodyguards and/or live in a very safe neighbourhood. The similar usually goes for the cunts upholding those laws in court.
If banning firesarms works, why oh why would they need armed guards7
There are always going to be isolated incidents. There's a reason why gun violence is much lower in countries without guns though.
Allow guns = kids accidentally shoot each other. man shoots his wife in a fit of rage. etc etc.
Ban guns = maybe some lunatic will get hold of one and try to assassinate someone etc, but it clearly isn't as bad
Ban guns for the state to start with. No one has murdered more people than the state.
-
How convenient that everyone hates my country right now, giving everyone an excuse to talk shit about it as much as they like. Contributing to that really helps. Thanks a lot, Adam and Odeon.
Wtf? Are you completely deranged? What does this have to do with everyone "hating your country"?
Have either of us said we hate the US?
I crushed him. He only returned when you came and "stood up" to the evil realist, days later.
If you mean me there, yes, I haven't been posting much except a little last night and tonight. I've been busy at work and elsewhere.
Adam turned it into a gun control debate, and took it to the "U CAN'T REBEL AGAINST GUBMINT" level, not me.
Read the FIRST FUCKING PAGE. Both you and Lit were already talking about gun control and defending yourself from the govt or however you put it. I could go back and post quotes, but honestly? i just don't care enough.
Because health care is something you work for, and rights are defended with your gun.
Why?
Why should you need to work for health care? HEALTH CARE FFS.
That seems pretty backward to me.
Key words there. MY COUNTRY. The one you aren't a resident of, piers morgan. ;)
Lol. OK, so I destroy your claim and that is all you can come back with?
Last I checked I'm allowed to have an opinion on issues affecting countries other than my own. Don't YOU give a shit about anyone elsewhere in the world? Anyway, it's not just gun control in the US is it? It's gun control, full stop. If you'll look at most of my posts on guns, you'll see I usually talk about the UK actually. not the US.
How about you bring something to this instead of a bunch of fingerpointing and empty denial?
Because I don#t give enough of a shit to go reasearching for an argument on the intenret. Note: I am NOT saying I don't read into gun control, gun violence etc. But not specifically to go ad get figures for this thread.
If you are so eager to socially engineer the people of my country, and you are sure that you are justified in this, how about you actually convince me?
I want to socially engineer the people of your country? Wow. That's news to me :laugh:
-
actually, Obama threatens Syria and now we have a deal for them to put their chemical weapons under UN scrutiny.
Also, the new guy in Iran states he has no interest in nuclear capabilities.
All without a shot being fired.
Also, Afghanistan is almost over, Iraq is.
Obama is moving foreign relations in the right direction.
Perfect? No!
He didn't get to kill the shit out of middle eastern people because putin outwitted him.
I don't think Putin outwitted him. I think Obama played a critical role in a successful negotiation.
Without somebody to stand there and hold the big stick, there wouldn't have been near the urgent incentive for Syria to agree with Russia's proposal. Obama has that stick because of his successful operation against Bin Laden. I don't know if Obama was playing a big bluff and never intended to invade, or whether he honestly wanted to spend a halfton of USA resources on another foreign war, but I don't think it matters that much.
The same thing is true in the smaller scenario of a gun crime. In the USA, you don't know whether a given person is carrying, and you don't know whether a given house will be defended with guns. That makes a criminal's job that much harder.
There will be mistakes, of course. I think the goal of eliminating mistakes entirely is actually shoddy thinking. We haven't figured out yet how to breed sociopathy out of the human genome, and the patterns of evolution and game theory show that it's unlikely to be done anytime soon. There's still a need for personal defense whether one lives in the USA or Sweden. Mistakes can be limited under highly controlled conditions, but there's a point of diminishing returns, the same way as there is when eliminating bugs in software development. Government control will never let people live in perfect safety, it will just present them with different dangers.
-
Heres a dude that isn't from America blasting gun control advocates. I like him.
But he's NOT FROM AMERICA! He's a foreigner! How dare he have an opinion?!?!? :laugh:
-
Puto Adamum non fortem esse! :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr:
-
Heres a dude that isn't from America blasting gun control advocates. I like him.
But he's NOT FROM AMERICA! He's a foreigner! How dare he have an opinion?!?!? :laugh:
I'm not saying you shouldn't have an opinion, i'm just plainly telling you, you're full of shit.
Wtf? Are you completely deranged? What does this have to do with everyone "hating your country"?
Have either of us said we hate the US?
You don't need to say it. The fact that you want so badly to change the U.S. constitution to make you feel good is proof enough. Don't feel too bad, hater. Our president hates us too.
Read the FIRST FUCKING PAGE. Both you and Lit were already talking about gun control and defending yourself from the govt or however you put it. I could go back and post quotes, but honestly? i just don't care enough.
We had an exchange about the second amendment and the purpose of it. You're the one that flew off the handle, not me.
Why?
Why should you need to work for health care? HEALTH CARE FFS.
That seems pretty backward to me.
Not to me. If you want the finer things in life, you should be willing to roll up them sleeves.
Lol. OK, so I destroy your claim and that is all you can come back with?
Last I checked I'm allowed to have an opinion on issues affecting countries other than my own. Don't YOU give a shit about anyone elsewhere in the world? Anyway, it's not just gun control in the US is it? It's gun control, full stop. If you'll look at most of my posts on guns, you'll see I usually talk about the UK actually. not the US.
You didn't destroy my claim on this planet. And sure, you're allowed to have your opinion, and i'm allowed to tell you its bullshit, then pull stats and facts that prove you wrong. I have the right.
you'll see I usually talk about the UK actually. not the US.
But not this time. Your intolerance of Lit and I having an exchange about the second amendment and how things work in the U.S. overcame you.
Because I don#t give enough of a shit to go reasearching for an argument on the intenret. Note: I am NOT saying I don't read into gun control, gun violence etc. But not specifically to go ad get figures for this thread.
If you cared enough, you'd have a stack of papers on it by now. I have tons of information which supports the opposing argument, and I use it all the time. But hey, to each his own.
I want to socially engineer the people of your country? Wow. That's news to me
Well if that's not your intent then get your nose out of my constitution, boy.
-
actually, Obama threatens Syria and now we have a deal for them to put their chemical weapons under UN scrutiny.
Also, the new guy in Iran states he has no interest in nuclear capabilities.
All without a shot being fired.
Also, Afghanistan is almost over, Iraq is.
Obama is moving foreign relations in the right direction.
Perfect? No!
He didn't get to kill the shit out of middle eastern people because putin outwitted him.
I don't think Putin outwitted him. I think Obama played a critical role in a successful negotiation.
Without somebody to stand there and hold the big stick, there wouldn't have been near the urgent incentive for Syria to agree with Russia's proposal. Obama has that stick because of his successful operation against Bin Laden. I don't know if Obama was playing a big bluff and never intended to invade, or whether he honestly wanted to spend a halfton of USA resources on another foreign war, but I don't think it matters that much.
The same thing is true in the smaller scenario of a gun crime. In the USA, you don't know whether a given person is carrying, and you don't know whether a given house will be defended with guns. That makes a criminal's job that much harder.
There will be mistakes, of course. I think the goal of eliminating mistakes entirely is actually shoddy thinking. We haven't figured out yet how to breed sociopathy out of the human genome, and the patterns of evolution and game theory show that it's unlikely to be done anytime soon. There's still a need for personal defense whether one lives in the USA or Sweden. Mistakes can be limited under highly controlled conditions, but there's a point of diminishing returns, the same way as there is when eliminating bugs in software development. Government control will never let people live in perfect safety, it will just present them with different dangers.
That's an interesting take on it, and for the most part I agree. What the gun haters don't understand is that most of the time just showing your piece is enough.
I have to say that I disagree about Obama. From what I understand it was found that the Syrian rebels were the ones who committed mass murder with chemical weapons. And those were the same rebels being trained and supplied by NATO forces. That's a pretty damning situation for the guy any way you look at it, especially with the whole Benghazi debacle still stinging a lot of us.
-
From what I understand it was found that the Syrian rebels were the ones who committed mass murder with chemical weapons. And those were the same rebels being trained and supplied by NATO forces. That's a pretty damning situation for the guy any way you look at it, especially with the whole Benghazi debacle still stinging a lot of us.
Who found it? Granted I haven't looked into it deeply, but the mainstream USA news sources I saw said it was Assad's regime with the chemical weapons, and Putin's article in the newspaper said it was the rebels.
Now that there's an agreement, who's preparing the reports and turning over the chemical weapons?
-
From what I understand it was found that the Syrian rebels were the ones who committed mass murder with chemical weapons. And those were the same rebels being trained and supplied by NATO forces. That's a pretty damning situation for the guy any way you look at it, especially with the whole Benghazi debacle still stinging a lot of us.
Who found it? Granted I haven't looked into it deeply, but the mainstream USA news sources I saw said it was Assad's regime with the chemical weapons, and Putin's article in the newspaper said it was the rebels.
Now that there's an agreement, who's preparing the reports and turning over the chemical weapons?
Yeah our media wouldn't tell us that part. The UN did their own investigation and found out the origin of the attacks. Basically the UN and Russia UNNED Oblamo's mass murder plan. Actually that's misleading. I have no idea what he was actually trying to do by supplying the rebels with chemical weapons and other stuff. It just looks pretty bad from where i'm sitting.
-
Seems? Does it or doesn't it?
it does...
If you write 'seems like' people might do research.
Louisiana just passed a bill that nullifies all gun control legislation. Now convicted felons can buy guns.
There should of course be no gun control at all. The founders of the US never intended any limits on gun ownership.
Aside from that owning guns is a natural right. You simply have the moral right to own a gun, period.
Moral
Adjective
Concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character.
Er, no.
Read what Spooner says about natural law. I posted a link.
Although Spooner says that you shouldn't give a weapon to a madman, he also says that all legislation is a crime. Ergo it is criminal to deny anyone the mere possession of anything. Morally criminal, of course.
You have the moral right to do anything that isn't malum in se. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malum_in_se) Yet most of the state's laws are about things that are only malum prohibitum. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malum_prohibitum) This is because the state's laws have nothing to do with moral justice but on the contrary are there to deny you your natural rights to keep its own power.
IF Spooner is right.
Which he isn't. Next.
Of course you read the link and studied his arguments ::)
Yes. Why?
-
Seems? Does it or doesn't it?
it does...
If you write 'seems like' people might do research.
Louisiana just passed a bill that nullifies all gun control legislation. Now convicted felons can buy guns.
There should of course be no gun control at all. The founders of the US never intended any limits on gun ownership.
Aside from that owning guns is a natural right. You simply have the moral right to own a gun, period.
Moral
Adjective
Concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character.
Er, no.
Read what Spooner says about natural law. I posted a link.
Although Spooner says that you shouldn't give a weapon to a madman, he also says that all legislation is a crime. Ergo it is criminal to deny anyone the mere possession of anything. Morally criminal, of course.
You have the moral right to do anything that isn't malum in se. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malum_in_se) Yet most of the state's laws are about things that are only malum prohibitum. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malum_prohibitum) This is because the state's laws have nothing to do with moral justice but on the contrary are there to deny you your natural rights to keep its own power.
IF Spooner is right.
Which he isn't. Next.
Of course you read the link and studied his arguments ::)
Yes. Why?
Are the legislators God? No. On the contrary they are often psychopaths and people with a very low moral.
Legislation cannot be morally or logically justified. A system where everyone is free to do what they want as long as they don't hurt anyone is on the other hand logically consistent.
-
Or simpler: no one has the right to rule anyone else, neither a dictator nor a democratic system (not that we have democracy, but not even a real democracy can be morally justified). You have no right to decide over other people because you are a majority. It's just something someone came up with.
-
If God existed he could have a moral right to rule human beings. Human beings can't have the moral right to rule each other.
-
Odeon-
He very clearly commented on an existing mess. Next.
How convenient that everyone hates my country right now, giving everyone an excuse to talk shit about it as much as they like. Contributing to that really helps. Thanks a lot, Adam and Odeon.
Did we hurt your precious feelings by pointing out some of the problems your country is faced with? Poor thing.
You are implying that your common sense knows something about why these tools were created that the researches do not? Right.
Its not rocket science, man.
Maybe you should contribute to the field, then, because the people who actually do the research don't know.
Logic fail. You are not the one to decide. Next.
I can decide whatever I want. And I decide that yes, I crushed him. He only returned when you came and "stood up" to the evil realist, days later.
You do realise that we have lives outside this place? I, for example, tend to open this thread only in the mornings, when drinking my morning coffee, knowing that headway can't be made. You and Lit only rarely allow anyone's arguments to affect yours, and never when guns are discussed. Lit will call us brainwashed and you will make the whole thing to be about your country.
And there's TA who will echo your sentiments.
So while it can be entertaining in the short term to reply to posts like this one, it will not actually lead anywhere. To me it's just something I do while waking up.
So decide what you want. It won't magically make it true.
Here's an example of a study Of the 626 shootings in or around the home, 54 were unintentional.
How would you label those 54? Collateral damage?
Next.
Here is something that causes a lot more deaths. Hospitals, and medical error. http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/11856.php (http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/11856.php) Whats your excuse for 195,000 deaths a year? Accidents happen? Well then that's my excuse too. Heres another fact: Guns save about a hundred times more lives than criminals manage to take. ;) You want to play with numbers huh? I can do that too.
Do try to stay on topic, please.
You make it sound like Adam changed the subject but your earlier
Adam turned it into a gun control debate, and took it to the "U CAN'T REBEL AGAINST GUBMINT" level, not me.
Because it is in there, it is there for a good reason? Logic fail. Next.
Hah! I think most americans agree with me, which is why gun bans have failed so far. This is -their- country, after all.
And their problem.
Who is changing the subject now? "Bank interest driven government"? Subtle. I'm still interested in why you don't seem to think that equal health care should not be a right when gun ownership is.
Because health care is something you work for, and rights are defended with your gun.
So if you are unemployed, you don't have a right to health care unless you use the gun to force it?
Right.
Gee, I wonder why the 13th amendment was deemed necessary and fought so bitterly?
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/thirteenthamendment.html (http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/thirteenthamendment.html)
The thirteenth amendment was taken out of context back then to make slavery okay, and even after being abolished and all these years its still being used the same way. *hint*
How do you manage to so completely miss my point? Deliberately?
It's OK for you to say that people who do not agree with you are empty-hearted, but not OK for me to question your reading comprehension?
You set the stage, now live with it.
I didn't say that people who disagree with me are empty hearted. You are taking things out of context to be divisive. Won't work on me.
Actually you pretty much did:
I will make one more jab, here. It is ridiculous to first come in and make claims, then act the victim when those claims are challenged. It is ridiculous to act as if it is a personal insult when the challenges of these claims hold weight. THIS is the main problem I have with the crowd that usually tends to be anti-gun, feminist, "atheist", etc. These people call themselves "progressive" usually and go through the motions of activism, but only because it is trending. I think the majority of you people care about appearances, and your heart is completely empty. I think you have been robbed of most of your humanity.
I didn't start this giant argument, Adam did. But i'll damn sure finish it. I'll finish the FUCK out of it.
But if it's not what you meant, then you should explain.
Tell me you're fucking joking with me. The people *opposing* guns are willing to experiment with people's lives while those in favour are not? That's a stretch, even by your logic.
Should I remind you that the NRA has effectively been able to block a lot of research into gun-related violence?
So since the EVIL NRA has engaged in conspiracy and blocked this heroic research, we should still go ahead and immediately change things around anyway without knowing what will happen because our feelings. That's a stretch, even by your logic.
??? Feelings? What feelings?
You are not making any sense. Want to try again?
Adam-
Also Rage, I think it's kinda funny that you think you can educate me and odeon on history by posting links to 5 minutes youtube videos
I read books, and if I recall correctly, so does odeon
Get off your high horse, mate ;)
That youtube video must be a damnsight better than whatever drivel you've been reading, or I would not have been concerned. Also, your business with me has nothing to do with Odeon. I'm handling him just fine, and i'll chase you off this issue a second time while debating him.
You're not handling me at all, mate. Takes a lot more than the above.
That's funny to me. I'm not 100% sure i'm right, actually. But when I speak with people who think like you, it convinces me a bit more every time. At least odeon attempted to produce some numbers and such. How about you bring something to this instead of a bunch of fingerpointing and empty denial? If you are so eager to socially engineer the people of my country, and you are sure that you are justified in this, how about you actually convince me?
Unlike you, I back up my numbers. You just seem to invent yours. :P
-
Rage, don't bother.
I thought you knew that your rights end where their feelings begin.
:rofl:
-
Rage, don't bother.
I thought you knew that your rights end where their feelings begin.
:rofl:
But that's what it is. It is all about that double bind complex I posted a link about. You don't like guns, so guns should be banned or restricted, despite the fact that you can only protect yourself with guns.
Isn't it true that the civilians in Syria wouldn't have been slaughter sheeps and rape victims right now if they had had machine guns and grenades to defend themselves with?
-
Seems? Does it or doesn't it?
it does...
If you write 'seems like' people might do research.
Louisiana just passed a bill that nullifies all gun control legislation. Now convicted felons can buy guns.
There should of course be no gun control at all. The founders of the US never intended any limits on gun ownership.
Aside from that owning guns is a natural right. You simply have the moral right to own a gun, period.
Moral
Adjective
Concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character.
Er, no.
Read what Spooner says about natural law. I posted a link.
Although Spooner says that you shouldn't give a weapon to a madman, he also says that all legislation is a crime. Ergo it is criminal to deny anyone the mere possession of anything. Morally criminal, of course.
You have the moral right to do anything that isn't malum in se. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malum_in_se) Yet most of the state's laws are about things that are only malum prohibitum. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malum_prohibitum) This is because the state's laws have nothing to do with moral justice but on the contrary are there to deny you your natural rights to keep its own power.
IF Spooner is right.
Which he isn't. Next.
Of course you read the link and studied his arguments ::)
Yes. Why?
Are the legislators God? No. On the contrary they are often psychopaths and people with a very low moral.
Legislation cannot be morally or logically justified. A system where everyone is free to do what they want as long as they don't hurt anyone is on the other hand logically consistent.
What you are saying is that anyone who reads his arguments is bound to agree with them. Sorry, but it doesn't work like that.
-
Seems? Does it or doesn't it?
it does...
If you write 'seems like' people might do research.
Louisiana just passed a bill that nullifies all gun control legislation. Now convicted felons can buy guns.
There should of course be no gun control at all. The founders of the US never intended any limits on gun ownership.
Aside from that owning guns is a natural right. You simply have the moral right to own a gun, period.
Moral
Adjective
Concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character.
Er, no.
Read what Spooner says about natural law. I posted a link.
Although Spooner says that you shouldn't give a weapon to a madman, he also says that all legislation is a crime. Ergo it is criminal to deny anyone the mere possession of anything. Morally criminal, of course.
You have the moral right to do anything that isn't malum in se. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malum_in_se) Yet most of the state's laws are about things that are only malum prohibitum. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malum_prohibitum) This is because the state's laws have nothing to do with moral justice but on the contrary are there to deny you your natural rights to keep its own power.
IF Spooner is right.
Which he isn't. Next.
Of course you read the link and studied his arguments ::)
Yes. Why?
Are the legislators God? No. On the contrary they are often psychopaths and people with a very low moral.
Legislation cannot be morally or logically justified. A system where everyone is free to do what they want as long as they don't hurt anyone is on the other hand logically consistent.
What you are saying is that anyone who reads his arguments is bound to agree with them. Sorry, but it doesn't work like that.
So what is wrong with what he is saying? Explain.
I'm not sure that you understand this. If they were God they could have moral rights being above the rights of humans and thus logically have a right to rule, but they are not God.
-
Rage, don't bother.
I thought you knew that your rights end where their feelings begin.
:rofl:
But that's what it is. It is all about that double bind complex I posted a link about. You don't like guns, so guns should be banned or restricted, despite the fact that you can only protect yourself with guns.
Isn't it true that the civilians in Syria wouldn't have been slaughter sheeps and rape victims right now if they had had machine guns and grenades to defend themselves with?
I actually rather like guns. I had great fun on the range.
But this has nothing to do with my feelings, any more than (presumably) Rage's or TA's pro-gun stance has to do with theirs. Saying it is the case doesn't make it true; it's just the only strawman technique TA seems to know about.
-
Rage, don't bother.
I thought you knew that your rights end where their feelings begin.
:rofl:
But that's what it is. It is all about that double bind complex I posted a link about. You don't like guns, so guns should be banned or restricted, despite the fact that you can only protect yourself with guns.
Isn't it true that the civilians in Syria wouldn't have been slaughter sheeps and rape victims right now if they had had machine guns and grenades to defend themselves with?
I actually rather like guns. I had great fun on the range.
But this has nothing to do with my feelings, any more than (presumably) Rage's or TA's pro-gun stance has to do with theirs. Saying it is the case doesn't make it true; it's just the only strawman technique TA seems to know about.
You like guns but you don't understand that gunlaws are there to protect the state from you and not you from mad spree killers?
-
So what is wrong with what he is saying? Explain.
I'm not sure that you understand this. If they were God they could have moral rights being above the rights of humans and thus logically have a right to rule, but they are not God.
We've been through this a number of times, Lit, and never agree on any of it. I've commented on some of it and others have commented on other bits. I'm not interested in doing any of it again so you'll either have to live with it or use the search function.
-
So what is wrong with what he is saying? Explain.
I'm not sure that you understand this. If they were God they could have moral rights being above the rights of humans and thus logically have a right to rule, but they are not God.
We've been through this a number of times, Lit, and never agree on any of it. I've commented on some of it and others have commented on other bits. I'm not interested in doing any of it again so you'll either have to live with it or use the search function.
You know that I am logically right but you still think "But it won't work without governments and laws".
Because I am right. When kings and emperors said that they had a right to rule because God had given them their power, this was a logically flawless argument, given the premiss that God exists. But if God doesn't exist and can't give human beings the right to rule in his place, no one has a right to rule, and that is pure logic.
-
Are politicians, officials, cops and soldiers superior beings vs. other human beings? If not, they logically have no right to decide what others should do and not.
Though it seems like people who haven't studied philosophy don't understand that it must be like this.
-
So what is wrong with what he is saying? Explain.
I'm not sure that you understand this. If they were God they could have moral rights being above the rights of humans and thus logically have a right to rule, but they are not God.
We've been through this a number of times, Lit, and never agree on any of it. I've commented on some of it and others have commented on other bits. I'm not interested in doing any of it again so you'll either have to live with it or use the search function.
You know that I am logically right but you still think "But it won't work without governments and laws".
Because I am right. When kings and emperors said that they had a right to rule because God had given them their power, this was a logically flawless argument, given the premiss that God exists. But if God doesn't exist and can't give human beings the right to rule in his place, no one has a right to rule, and that is pure logic.
::sigh::
Again, I'm not interested in arguing any of this. Don't put words in my mouth or tell me what my opinions are--you don't know and I'm not interested in telling you.
I should know better than to engage in the silliness apparent in this thread. I started the bloody thing but I rather regret doing so. It never leads anywhere.
Be as it may, I do think it's wildly amusing that you lot always claim to know what we (Adam, me, and basically anyone who have differing opinions) think. It is an interesting debating technique. Not wildly successful but interesting, and amusing in that unintentionally comical way.
-
Be as it may, I do think it's wildly amusing that you lot always claim to know what we (Adam, me, and basically anyone who have differing opinions) think. It is an interesting debating technique. Not wildly successful but interesting, and amusing in that unintentionally comical way.
But it's so obvious. The thought of free guns makes you feel uncomfortable, despite obvious facts like:
1) You can't defend yourself against a robber, burglar, rapist etc who is physically stronger or armed himself.
2) You can't defend yourself from something like what is happening in Syria.
-
Oh, and as an aside:
There are people here who have very different opinions on guns than I do, but who never put words in my mouth, try to explain to me what my opinions really are and why.
Them I would debate the matter with, because with them, a nuanced discussion is possible. I don't claim to always be right, but I do have opinions and I do know what they are. With people who realise this, a discussion is possible and welcomed.
In other words, respect my opinions and I'll respect yours.
-
:trollface:
(http://steynian.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/941423_253506774774251_92167637_n.jpg?w=300&h=200)
-
:trollface:
(http://steynian.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/941423_253506774774251_92167637_n.jpg?w=300&h=200)
the most ignorant meme ever. Our government operates under a system of checks and balances....ideally.
Really it is just a bureaucratic monster where not one knows what the other is doing.
I suspect, if we are arming the rebels, it is the CIA. Obama, i suspect, has very little to say about their day to day operations.
-
:trollface:
(http://steynian.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/941423_253506774774251_92167637_n.jpg?w=300&h=200)
the most ignorant meme ever. Our government operates under a system of checks and balances....ideally.
Really it is just a bureaucratic monster where not one knows what the other is doing.
I suspect, if we are arming the rebels, it is the CIA. Obama, i suspect, has very little to say about their day to day operations.
It really looks like a leftover from the bush administration like with the patriot act. Oblamo is perfectly aware of all the spying, so I seriously doubt he was oblivious to all the shenanigans going on in the middle east. I don't know why you are so hellbent on excusing the guy. Because he's black?
-
Are politicians, officials, cops and soldiers superior beings vs. other human beings? If not, they logically have no right to decide what others should do and not.
Though it seems like people who haven't studied philosophy don't understand that it must be like this.
This is the bottom line. There is no higher level, morally superior human being. There just isn't. Governments and the like are unfortunately comprised of human beings, and they are subject to the same greed and corruption that we are. As they are in positions of power, they are actually more vulnerable to these. This means they must also be held accountable for their actions and allowing government complete power over you is a childish mistake. The people of all nations must be prepared to topple their governments if they overstep their authority.
This world some think they can build where there are no ouchy people and no naughty weapons, and government tucks you in every night like mommy and daddy? Its never going to happen. Government is going to fuck your ass if you make yourself too vulnerable, because they are humans.
-
Did we hurt your precious feelings by pointing out some of the problems your country is faced with? Poor thing.
No actually. Its just redundant that you speak repeatedly with almost no knowledge of the issue. When is the last time you visited my country? What do you really know of it's history and laws?
Maybe you should contribute to the field, then, because the people who actually do the research don't know.
I'd eat my hat if they really didn't know. Its just that they don't have enough evidence to write a publication.
You do realise that we have lives outside this place? I, for example, tend to open this thread only in the mornings, when drinking my morning coffee, knowing that headway can't be made.
So?
You and Lit only rarely allow anyone's arguments to affect yours, and never when guns are discussed.
You have to defeat my points to affect my argument, especially when you attempt to attack parts of my country's constitution. I know you didn't start that, Adam did. But you had no problem with joining him in it.
Lit will call us brainwashed and you will make the whole thing to be about your country.
Well, you were the one saying "murricans'" a bunch of times. That word does mean the United States, right? Snap!
And there's TA who will echo your sentiments.
He agrees with me. Would you like a gun to shoot him with? :LOL:
So decide what you want. It won't magically make it true.
I feel exactly the same way, pardner.
Do try to stay on topic, please.
Hah. Hard to swallow ain't it? The numbers don't favor your view, and I have a stack of em for you if you're interested in a bit of reality.
So if you are unemployed, you don't have a right to health care unless you use the gun to force it?
No, you get off your ass and get a job.
How do you manage to so completely miss my point? Deliberately?
No, you missed mine.
Feelings? What feelings?
You are not making any sense. Want to try again?
You feel the world would be better without firearms, don't you?
You're not handling me at all, mate. Takes a lot more than the above
Just because you say so doesn't make it true. You are not defeating my arguments, the thread is slowing down, and you're beginning to resort to one sentence quips. Looks a lot like things are in my favor, here.
Unlike you, I back up my numbers. You just seem to invent yours
I was talking to adam there, sir. And the only time you used numbers, I destroyed them with some of my own.
-
:trollface:
(http://steynian.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/941423_253506774774251_92167637_n.jpg?w=300&h=200)
the most ignorant meme ever. Our government operates under a system of checks and balances....ideally.
Really it is just a bureaucratic monster where not one knows what the other is doing.
I suspect, if we are arming the rebels, it is the CIA. Obama, i suspect, has very little to say about their day to day operations.
It really looks like a leftover from the bush administration like with the patriot act. Oblamo is perfectly aware of all the spying, so I seriously doubt he was oblivious to all the shenanigans going on in the middle east. I don't know why you are so hellbent on excusing the guy. Because he's black?
because you're white?
-
You don't need to say it. The fact that you want so badly to change the U.S. constitution to make you feel good is proof enough. Don't feel too bad, hater. Our president hates us too.
I "so badly want to change the US constitution"? Really?
Well, personally I feel you'd be better off with stricter gun laws, yes. And if I lived there I would want that to be the case. I wouldn't say I "so badly want to change the US constitution" though.
Not to me. If you want the finer things in life, you should be willing to roll up them sleeves.
Wow. That kind of attitude actually disgusts me.
But not this time. Your intolerance of Lit and I having an exchange about the second amendment and how things work in the U.S. overcame you.
I posted a reply to a conversation on an internet forum and that makes me intolerant? And yes, of course my reply was about the US - you were TALKING ABOUT THE U.S. ALREADY.
If you cared enough, you'd have a stack of papers on it by now. I have tons of information which supports the opposing argument, and I use it all the time. But hey, to each his own.
Didn't I already say I DON'T care enough though? It's fortunately not an issue which really affects me, as we don't really do guns here. So yeah, out of all the issues I care about, gun control isn't one I'm going to spend my life compiling stacks of research on. Sure, I look into the facts and read up on it. But not obsessively.
Well if that's not your intent then get your nose out of my constitution, boy.
I'm not changing your constitution, am I? I'm discussing something on an internet forum...
-
So if you are unemployed, you don't have a right to health care unless you use the gun to force it?
No, you get off your ass and get a job.
Wow. This just shows you really are clueless, Rage
-
Did we hurt your precious feelings by pointing out some of the problems your country is faced with? Poor thing.
No actually. Its just redundant that you speak repeatedly with almost no knowledge of the issue. When is the last time you visited my country? What do you really know of it's history and laws?
I did hurt your precious feelings, didn't I? It's a problem to you when we highlight some of the issues your country is faced with, isn't it? You become all defensive.
Maybe you should contribute to the field, then, because the people who actually do the research don't know.
I'd eat my hat if they really didn't know. Its just that they don't have enough evidence to write a publication.
Doesn't stop you from claiming things and calling it common sense. Go for that paper. Or prepare your hat.
You do realise that we have lives outside this place? I, for example, tend to open this thread only in the mornings, when drinking my morning coffee, knowing that headway can't be made.
So?
So you claimed you defeated Adam because he didn't reply to you quickly enough. If you have problems reading things in context, don't remove the context.
You and Lit only rarely allow anyone's arguments to affect yours, and never when guns are discussed.
You have to defeat my points to affect my argument, especially when you attempt to attack parts of my country's constitution. I know you didn't start that, Adam did. But you had no problem with joining him in it.
There you are with your precious feelings again. Is your constitution sacred, somehow? You mad, bro?
Lit will call us brainwashed and you will make the whole thing to be about your country.
Well, you were the one saying "murricans'" a bunch of times. That word does mean the United States, right? Snap!
The word is 'mericans. Don't make this to be about your feelings. :eyelash:
And there's TA who will echo your sentiments.
He agrees with me. Would you like a gun to shoot him with? :LOL:
I realise you tend to see guns as a solution but I'll just ignore him. Easier.
So decide what you want. It won't magically make it true.
I feel exactly the same way, pardner.
We seem to be making some headway, then. I'm glad you realise your decisions are subjective.
Do try to stay on topic, please.
Hah. Hard to swallow ain't it? The numbers don't favor your view, and I have a stack of em for you if you're interested in a bit of reality.
The numbers I presented did. Probably why you ignored them. Reality is a bitch, isn't it?
So if you are unemployed, you don't have a right to health care unless you use the gun to force it?
No, you get off your ass and get a job.
This comment is so clueless it's astonishing. Makes me wonder if you have any idea of you country's actual problems.
How do you manage to so completely miss my point? Deliberately?
No, you missed mine.
My dad is stronger than your dad.
Feelings? What feelings?
You are not making any sense. Want to try again?
You feel the world would be better without firearms, don't you?
I *think* the world would be better without firearms.
You're not handling me at all, mate. Takes a lot more than the above
Just because you say so doesn't make it true. You are not defeating my arguments, the thread is slowing down, and you're beginning to resort to one sentence quips. Looks a lot like things are in my favor, here.
Just because you say so doesn't make it true. You are not defeating my arguments, the thread is slowing down, and you're beginning to resort to one sentence quips. Looks a lot like things are in my favor, here.
Unlike you, I back up my numbers. You just seem to invent yours
I was talking to adam there, sir. And the only time you used numbers, I destroyed them with some of my own.
:rofl:
You invented numbers, from the looks of it. Back them up and I might take them more seriously.
-
The baby boomers are almost dead.
Thank fucking god. :zoinks:
-
And there's TA who will echo your sentiments.
I'll address this since my name was bought up.
I usually don't stay in these debates for very long because it boils down to the simple fact that people like you and Adam are of the opinion that another's rights end where your feelings begin. Do you have a right to have that opinion? Yes. Do I have to agree with it? No.
-
Oh, I posted these two quotes here years ago, but I think it's time to post them again:
"Ordinary people don't need guns. The state will give them the protection that they need."
- Heinrich Himmler
"The people should not only be trained and disciplined but also have enough arms and ammunition to defeat any possible enemy, including their own government."
- Thomas Jefferson
Something for odeon and Adam to consider.
-
OK cool, Himmler shared your view on the purpose of banning guns
And Hitler liked dogs
I couldn't care less
btw, it's 2013, not 1776
-
OK cool, Himmler shared your view on the purpose of banning guns
And Hitler liked dogs
I couldn't care less
btw, it's 2013, not 1776
So the number thirteen means we've somehow evolved and become less nasty? Humans are humans, and there must be some sort of danger stopping them from hurting each other. Like the danger of getting shot.
-
I did hurt your precious feelings, didn't I? It's a problem to you when we highlight some of the issues your country is faced with, isn't it? You become all defensive.
That doesn't answer my questions.
Doesn't stop you from claiming things and calling it common sense. Go for that paper. Or prepare your hat.
Heaven forbid that they actually -are- common sense! :LOL:
So you claimed you defeated Adam because he didn't reply to you quickly enough. If you have problems reading things in context, don't remove the context.
So I have tons of responsibilities, and I manage to meet them all and more. And I still have time to come here and poke at your gay ass liberal agenda, because its entertaining. I didn't remove the context, you just insist on underestimating me as a person.
There you are with your precious feelings again. Is your constitution sacred, somehow? You mad, bro?
Is your constitution sacred, somehow?
It sure as hell is. :thumbup:
The word is 'mericans. Don't make this to be about your feelings.
I'm pretty sure its about your feelings. I was merely poking at you for whining that Lit HAD to make this about America. (especially since the original topic was about legislations in IOWA. A U.S. STATE. :zoinks:)
I realise you tend to see guns as a solution but I'll just ignore him. Easier.
Ah yes, pretend it doesn't exist. That's a common theme with people like you hmm?
We seem to be making some headway, then. I'm glad you realise your decisions are subjective.
Lol I wasn't aware that is what this was about. Some of any human being's decisions are subjective, but the extreme left tend to make all their decisions that way.
The numbers I presented did. Probably why you ignored them. Reality is a bitch, isn't it?
I didn't ignore them, I made them look silly by comparing them to another, much larger number related to your precious health care. :hahaha:
This comment is so clueless it's astonishing. Makes me wonder if you have any idea of you country's actual problems.
Yes, and the main one is a several trillion dollar debt that grows by the day. One that will become much worse by turning this country into a welfare state.
My dad is stronger than your dad.
::)
I *think* the world would be better without firearms.
And I am certain that's a silly fantasy.
Just because you say so doesn't make it true. You are not defeating my arguments, the thread is slowing down, and you're beginning to resort to one sentence quips. Looks a lot like things are in my favor, here.
Oh wow did you come up with that all by yourself?
You invented numbers, from the looks of it. Back them up and I might take them more seriously.
Shows me how much you really know about this debate, since the medical error argument is a pretty common one. Don't feel bad, you reacted to it like most of them do. Also, invented? Heres the information again, since you must have just been skimming the first time.
Here is something that causes a lot more deaths. Hospitals, and medical error. http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/11856.php (http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/11856.php) Whats your excuse for 195,000 deaths a year? Accidents happen? Well then that's my excuse too. 195000 deaths as compared to less than a hundred. But you're worried about a tool people accidentally shoot themselves with sometimes.
You're absolutely SURE this isn't about feels, man?
-
Wow. This just shows you really are clueless, Rage
I disagree, and have no interest in my country becoming the welfare state yours has. If you have something to prove me wrong with, then by all means go ahead.
I "so badly want to change the US constitution"? Really?
Well, personally I feel you'd be better off with stricter gun laws, yes. And if I lived there I would want that to be the case. I wouldn't say I "so badly want to change the US constitution" though
The second amendment is part of that constitution, and I know you'd get your jollies seeing it changed. Fortunately, you cant vote.
Not to me. If you want the finer things in life, you should be willing to roll up them sleeves.
Wow. That kind of attitude actually disgusts me.
So you think its okay to live in mommy and daddy's house and never have any responsibilities and be an overall burden on the economy, your family, and everyone around you? And my attitude disgusts you. Ok man.
I posted a reply to a conversation on an internet forum and that makes me intolerant? And yes, of course my reply was about the US - you were TALKING ABOUT THE U.S. ALREADY.
The fact that you couldn't resist jumping in and talking shit about my county's laws and culture oozes intolerance the fact that you almost never miss the chance solidifies that.
Didn't I already say I DON'T care enough though? It's fortunately not an issue which really affects me, as we don't really do guns here. So yeah, out of all the issues I care about, gun control isn't one I'm going to spend my life compiling stacks of research on. Sure, I look into the facts and read up on it. But not obsessively.
Well if you don't care, then mind your own business.
I'm not changing your constitution, am I? I'm discussing something on an internet forum...
You would if you could. And i'm sure you inject as much shill on facebook and other places as you have time for.
-
So you think its okay to live in mommy and daddy's house and never have any responsibilities and be an overall burden on the economy, your family, and everyone around you? And my attitude disgusts you. Ok man.
I don't view people in need of healthcare etc as "burdens"
And if I had to choose one thing I love about my country, it would be the welfare state / NHS
I'm not a patriotic person at all, but I am definitely "proud" of that
It kinda says a lot that, for you, it's guns that are most important
For me, it's caring for ALL members of society, regardless of their contribution or ability to pay
You'd rather see someone shot. I'd rather see someone saved.
-
So you think its okay to live in mommy and daddy's house and never have any responsibilities and be an overall burden on the economy, your family, and everyone around you? And my attitude disgusts you. Ok man.
I don't view people in need of healthcare etc as "burdens"
And if I had to choose one thing I love about my country, it would be the welfare state / NHS
I'm not a patriotic person at all, but I am definitely "proud" of that
It kinda says a lot that, for you, it's guns that are most important
For me, it's caring for ALL members of society, regardless of their contribution or ability to pay
You'd rather see someone shot. I'd rather see someone saved.
I'd rather see someone saved that is willing to contribute. I don't see a need of healthcare as a burden, but if someone actually is a burden and is also in need of healthcare, i'm not paying for it.
-
So how do we decide who is a burden and who isn't? Or do you just pick and choose yourself?
-
OK cool, Himmler shared your view on the purpose of banning guns
And Hitler liked dogs
I couldn't care less
btw, it's 2013, not 1776
:facepalm2:
Himmler had the same view on guns as you!
Though Himmler was one of the mightiest men in the Third Reich so such a gun law would have been a benefit for him. It can't be a benefit to you, though.
You are simply stupid. You don't even understand what I'm saying. And you want a gunlaw that makes it possible for both the state and "ordinary" criminals to murder you with ease.
-
I assumed you were using the Himmler quote to make your point that gun laws are to protect the government from the people, not the people from each other
And imo yes, gun laws DO benefit me
I'm pretty sure none of my neighbours have guns, and the chances of my little brothers being shot at school etc are pretty close to nil
And yes, the government could kill me easily. I'm pretty sure they could still do that even if I had a rifle though
-
I assumed you were using the Himmler quote to make your point that gun laws are to protect the government from the people, not the people from each other
And imo yes, gun laws DO benefit me
I'm pretty sure none of my neighbours have guns, and the chances of my little brothers being shot at school etc are pretty close to nil
And yes, the government could kill me easily. I'm pretty sure they could still do that even if I had a rifle though
Last year I met an ex military guy from a Swedish forum. He told me about the war in Bosnia. He had been there. Those civilians being able to defend themselves there were not the pacifists.
-
It's like Fox News versus msnbc.
I like msnbc
-
btw find it kinda amusing that Lit and Rage are on the same side here, given Rage's views on "lazy" people who are a "burden to society" (his words, not mine)
Lit is PROUD to be exactly that
-
btw find it kinda amusing that Lit and Rage are on the same side here, given Rage's views on "lazy" people who are a "burden to society" (his words, not mine)
Lit is PROUD to be exactly that
Proud and proud. I don't feel like I have any obligation to the so called society.
They have robbed my parents on more than 5 millions of kronor in pension, so I think that my disability is part of my legacy.
That ex army guy thought that it was perfectly OK for me to be on disability, btw.
What do you have to say about the war in Bosnia? That will never happen in the UK, of course?
-
Yes, I am not expecting a Bosnia-like situation in the uk any time soon/
And this is where you call me naive, stupid and brainwashed etc etc
-
Yes, I am not expecting a Bosnia-like situation in the uk any time soon/
And this is where you call me naive, stupid and brainwashed etc etc
Do you think the Yugoslavs in 1982 expected a civil war 10 years later? Did anyone in 1919 expect a new world war 20 years later?
-
btw find it kinda amusing that Lit and Rage are on the same side here, given Rage's views on "lazy" people who are a "burden to society" (his words, not mine)
Lit is PROUD to be exactly that
But both Rage and Lit are against the current political structure. They both want their respective governments to be overthrown and replaced. Their gun control arguments stem from this central viewpoint.
-
:agreed:
-
And there's TA who will echo your sentiments.
I'll address this since my name was bought up.
I usually don't stay in these debates for very long because it boils down to the simple fact that people like you and Adam are of the opinion that another's rights end where your feelings begin. Do you have a right to have that opinion? Yes. Do I have to agree with it? No.
"Fact"?
-
I did hurt your precious feelings, didn't I? It's a problem to you when we highlight some of the issues your country is faced with, isn't it? You become all defensive.
That doesn't answer my questions.
/shrug
You didn't address mine. You are still defensive, though.
Doesn't stop you from claiming things and calling it common sense. Go for that paper. Or prepare your hat.
Heaven forbid that they actually -are- common sense! :LOL:
How do you like our hat? Cooked?
So you claimed you defeated Adam because he didn't reply to you quickly enough. If you have problems reading things in context, don't remove the context.
So I have tons of responsibilities, and I manage to meet them all and more. And I still have time to come here and poke at your gay ass liberal agenda, because its entertaining. I didn't remove the context, you just insist on underestimating me as a person.
Actually, no. I don't think it's possible to underestimate you.
There you are with your precious feelings again. Is your constitution sacred, somehow? You mad, bro?
Is your constitution sacred, somehow?
It sure as hell is. :thumbup:
Explains why you come off as a fanatic. Religion starts where rationality ends.
The word is 'mericans. Don't make this to be about your feelings.
I'm pretty sure its about your feelings. I was merely poking at you for whining that Lit HAD to make this about America. (especially since the original topic was about legislations in IOWA. A U.S. STATE. :zoinks:)
Actually the original topic was about allowing the blind to carry guns. I should know. I started it.
But I was wrong about this being merely about your feelings. It's clearly also about your religion.
I realise you tend to see guns as a solution but I'll just ignore him. Easier.
Ah yes, pretend it doesn't exist. That's a common theme with people like you hmm?
Beats your solution to use a gun. That's a common theme with people like you.
We seem to be making some headway, then. I'm glad you realise your decisions are subjective.
Lol I wasn't aware that is what this was about. Some of any human being's decisions are subjective, but the extreme left tend to make all their decisions that way.
You said it, I merely commented on your realisation.
The numbers I presented did. Probably why you ignored them. Reality is a bitch, isn't it?
I didn't ignore them, I made them look silly by comparing them to another, much larger number related to your precious health care. :hahaha:
This comment is so clueless it's astonishing. Makes me wonder if you have any idea of you country's actual problems.
Yes, and the main one is a several trillion dollar debt that grows by the day. One that will become much worse by turning this country into a welfare state.
You can save more by closing down schools, too.
My dad is stronger than your dad.
::)
If you want a serious argument, produce serious comments.
I *think* the world would be better without firearms.
And I am certain that's a silly fantasy.
Here's a question about your religion:
If ignoring the practicalities of getting rid of every firearm there is, if for a moment imagining it was possible (which, btw, I don't think it is), do you think the world would be a better place? A yes or no will do.
Just because you say so doesn't make it true. You are not defeating my arguments, the thread is slowing down, and you're beginning to resort to one sentence quips. Looks a lot like things are in my favor, here.
Oh wow did you come up with that all by yourself?
You invented numbers, from the looks of it. Back them up and I might take them more seriously.
Shows me how much you really know about this debate, since the medical error argument is a pretty common one. Don't feel bad, you reacted to it like most of them do. Also, invented? Heres the information again, since you must have just been skimming the first time.
Here is something that causes a lot more deaths. Hospitals, and medical error. http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/11856.php (http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/11856.php) Whats your excuse for 195,000 deaths a year? Accidents happen? Well then that's my excuse too. 195000 deaths as compared to less than a hundred. But you're worried about a tool people accidentally shoot themselves with sometimes.
You're absolutely SURE this isn't about feels, man?
Shoot themselves with? If they kept on shooting themselves, I'd say good riddance, good for the gene pool, but the fact is that others get hurt.
As for 195,000 as compared to less than a hundred, that last number, where did it come from?
This topic is not about health care, though. It's an important subject but I suggest you to start a separate thread for it.
Let's produce some gun-related numbers, though. Did you know, for example, that more people - nine - were killed with scissors in japan in 2011 than with guns? Guns are few and far between over there, but still, there are 120,000 registered gun owners there, in a country with 130,000,000 people.
The US population is (roughly) twice the size. Yet, yearly, more than 11,000 people die yearly in gun-related incidents.
That's a lot, especially if for a moment entertaining your silly notion of the gun being just a tool. Do you think there are more than 11,000 screwdriver-related deaths yearly in the US?
But that's just silly, isn't it?
-
And there's TA who will echo your sentiments.
I'll address this since my name was bought up.
I usually don't stay in these debates for very long because it boils down to the simple fact that people like you and Adam are of the opinion that another's rights end where your feelings begin. Do you have a right to have that opinion? Yes. Do I have to agree with it? No.
"Fact"?
Quibbling over a single word
-
Actually, no. I don't think it's possible to underestimate you.
epic
-
The US population is (roughly) twice the size. Yet, yearly, more than 11,000 people die yearly in gun-related incidents.
That's a lot, especially if for a moment entertaining your silly notion of the gun being just a tool. Do you think there are more than 11,000 screwdriver-related deaths yearly in the US?
But that's just silly, isn't it?
Yes, it's silly. It's a lot compared to the gun deaths in Japan but not compared to the size of the US population, that is 317000000.
But this is shameful pramgatism/utilitarism. Freedom isn't for free and you are using utilitaristic arguments when discussing a right (because defending yourself is a right and thus owning the means for it is an extension of that right, and merely owning a gun is also not malum in se).
-
But OK, I'll consider the utilitarist argument for a short moment. How many people in Syria are being raped, molested and murdered now because they don't have the weapons to defend themselves? How many Jews died because they didn't have the weapons to defend themselves against the nazis? How many citizens of the Soviet Union, who couldn't defend themselves against Stalins thugs? Quite a few more than 11000 out of 317000000.
-
"But that will never happen in Sweden or the UK". Because history shows that everything is stable and will last forever ::)
-
You just hate us Brits
I have proof
The Emmy's :zoinks:
-
Britain started with licensing guns even before WWI. It was one of the first countries in Europe to do so.
Now just your fucking lords have pistols :thumbdn:
-
You just hate us Brits
I have proof
The Emmy's :zoinks:
:P
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3214/3044618385_1cf7c75c6c_m.jpg)
-
An anagram of awesome scale
is
same woe scale :zoinks:
-
So how do we decide who is a burden and who isn't? Or do you just pick and choose yourself?
Lol no. You decide someone is a burden if they are only taking from everyone and not giving anything back.
bur·den 1 (bûrdn)
n.
1. Something that is carried.
2.
a. Something that is emotionally difficult to bear.
b. A source of great worry or stress; weight: The burden of economic sacrifice rests on the workers of the plant.
3. A responsibility or duty: The burden of organizing the campaign fell to me.
4. Nautical
a. The amount of cargo that a vessel can carry.
b. The weight of the cargo carried by a vessel at one time.
5. The amount of a disease-causing entity present in an organism.
tr.v. bur·dened, bur·den·ing, bur·dens
1. To weigh down; oppress.
2. To load or overload.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Middle English, from Old English byrthen; see bher-1 in Indo-European roots.]
Synonyms: burden1, affliction, cross, trial, tribulation
These nouns denote something onerous or troublesome: the burden of a guilty conscience; indebtedness that is an affliction; a temper that is her cross; a troublemaker who is a trial to the teacher; suffered many tribulations in rising from poverty. See Also Synonyms at substance.
5. The amount of a disease-causing entity present in an organism.
-
/shrug
You didn't address mine. You are still defensive, though.
Explain to me how I didn't address yours?
How do you like our hat? Cooked?
::)
Actually, no. I don't think it's possible to underestimate you.
Thanks for confirming my point.
Explains why you come off as a fanatic. Religion starts where rationality ends.
Hah, i'm an atheist, bro. I just don't thing a nation's constitution should be taken so lightly.
Actually the original topic was about allowing the blind to carry guns. I should know. I started it.
But I was wrong about this being merely about your feelings. It's clearly also about your religion.
Again, I have no religion. And yeah, that's what I said. This thread started on the basis of legislations in Iowa. Iowa is an American state. You would never have made this thread if you hadn't heard what was going on in this American state. :zoinks:
Beats your solution to use a gun. That's a common theme with people like you.
And this is our fundemental disagreement. You are being ambiguous on purpose, but I will meet this point directly. Pretending something is not there will not solve a problem. In reality where the grown-ups live, its common knowledge that one must address problems as they develop or they will grow into a larger problem. As to your ambiguous statement, I laughed.
Beats your solution to use a gun.
Yeah whatever man. Use a gun for what? Do you even know?
You said it, I merely commented on your realisation.
It wasn't a realization. Dance around all you like sir, i'm actually trying to play ball with you.
You can save more by closing down schools, too.
Its foolish to get rid of anything, which again seems to be a common theme with you. I said nothing of banning anything or closing anything down. I stated that the welfare state design in the U.K. would destroy my country, which is already several trillion dollars in the red.
If you want a serious argument, produce serious comments.
I have been. You just don't like them.
Here's a question about your religion:
If ignoring the practicalities of getting rid of every firearm there is, if for a moment imagining it was possible (which, btw, I don't think it is), do you think the world would be a better place? A yes or no will do.
I have no religion, and no. People will continue to kill each other. You are looking to change the human condition, I think.
The US population is (roughly) twice the size. Yet, yearly, more than 11,000 people die yearly in gun-related incidents.
Big problem with the language there.
more than 11,000 people die yearly in gun-related incidents.
How many of those were criminals killing each other, or being killed by victims of crime in self defense hmmm? How many of those were actually lives of law abiding citizens saved?
This topic is not about health care, though. It's an important subject but I suggest you to start a separate thread for it.
I'm not arguing health care and you know it. I used a very large number (195,000 deaths) to illustrate that there are other very important life saving things that wind up killing a lot of people. More than your 11,000 people, I might add. I don't hear you rallying the social justice warriors to ban hospitals, because they are high priority in your mind, right? (mine too, but so are guns)
So yeah, thanks for the dance. :LOL:
-
lol I don't need a definition of the word 'burden'
What about someone suffering from depression who isn't working?
What about someone who is unemployed but has been searching for a job?
What about someone with severe mental illness?
Exactly who qualifies as a burden?
-
Puto Adamum non fortem esse! Non Romanus est! :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr:
-
btw
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/23/obama-navy-yard-gun-laws-inevitable (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/23/obama-navy-yard-gun-laws-inevitable)
:2thumbsup:
-
Hopefully he will get what he deserves for his crimes.
-
what does he deserve?
-
btw
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/23/obama-navy-yard-gun-laws-inevitable (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/23/obama-navy-yard-gun-laws-inevitable)
:2thumbsup:
I like what this guy said:
Dear President Obama: If you do not like the Bill of Rights, a part of the Constitution, began an effort to repeal whatever part with which you have a problem. There is a procedure for doing just that. Do not advocate for an unconstitutional 'end run' by layering on more regulations.
-
lol I don't need a definition of the word 'burden'
What about someone suffering from depression who isn't working?
What about someone who is unemployed but has been searching for a job?
What about someone with severe mental illness?
Exactly who qualifies as a burden?
Its like you are allergic to common sense. If someone is able to contribute to society and chooses not to, then they do not deserve to enjoy the benefits of said society. Its simple, man.
What about someone suffering from depression who isn't working?
If it is so debilitating that they are an invalid, then should be actively seeking help so that they can properly cope and resume being a productive member of their community.
What about someone who is unemployed but has been searching for a job?
If they are really looking for a job I don't see the problem.
What about someone with severe mental illness?
Depends on the illness. Some can be managed, and some cannot. Loaded question btw, and that's why we already have a disability system in place. I am against adding a nationwide disability safety net that caters to everyone regardless of whether or not they are actually disabled though. I'm not willing to pay for wimps, hypochondriacs, and cons to sit on their asses jacking off all day.
-
It's simple, is it? lol you clearly have no idea how these things work then.
EXACTLY HOW do you determine whether someone is choosing not to work?
All you're offering me here is "if someone chooses not to contribute to societiy... if someone's a wimp... if someone sits on their ass all day..." etc etc
It's really not that clear cut at all. Try writing that into law.
-
It's simple, is it? lol you clearly have no idea how these things work then.
EXACTLY HOW do you determine whether someone is choosing not to work?
All you're offering me here is "if someone chooses not to contribute to societiy... if someone's a wimp... if someone sits on their ass all day..." etc etc
It's really not that clear cut at all. Try writing that into law.
If someone is not actively seeking employment and has no documented illness or disability hindering that(and somehow cons society out of money, food, medical care, etc), then they should be arrested in my opinion.
Its called being a thief and a cheat. Taking things that don't belong to you is wrong, and when you don't earn your keep that's exactly what you are doing.
-
btw
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/23/obama-navy-yard-gun-laws-inevitable (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/23/obama-navy-yard-gun-laws-inevitable)
:2thumbsup:
Also, let me ask you a very important question. What do you know about this guy, other than the fact that he committed murder with a gun?
-
wtf
this just came up on my facebook:
http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2013/09/20/hayward-shooting-victims-bleeding-mistaken-for-menstruation/ (http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2013/09/20/hayward-shooting-victims-bleeding-mistaken-for-menstruation/)
-
What
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTay6necVQVHUBrVt_Ww0_EpjQcFlPw7zk94DZNR35epND3V4td)
She thought the appearance of a second asshole was menstration.
-
btw
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/23/obama-navy-yard-gun-laws-inevitable (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/23/obama-navy-yard-gun-laws-inevitable)
:2thumbsup:
Also, let me ask you a very important question. What do you know about this guy, other than the fact that he committed murder with a gun?
LOL. You're looking, aren't you? Pretty ass backwards way of looking at things, wouldn't you say? You seem to be starting out on "hypothesis is true", and looking for supporting evidence as you encounter bumps in the road.
(http://slvsef.org/images/site/scientific_method.gif?1347047491)
Also, spoiler: Theres not much info on this guy, anyway, Adam. I looked.
-
BTW: On that story, a lot of particularly credible news teams are either falsifying stories in order to push an agenda, or are not fact checking their content.
Its widley said right now that Aaron used an "ASSAULT WEAPON" to kill those people. Not so. He did not use and AR15 like so many are reporting, and did not even attempt to buy one. (lots are reporting that he failed background checks on it lmao) Also, there are thousands of gun control laws in effect in Virginia.
The weapon used was a Remington 870 shotgun(I have one of those, btw. Its a turkey hunting gun. No joke.), and 30 shotgun shells. The only AR15s on the scene were in the hands of law enforcement, and those were used to kill Aaron. Facts. I'd personally still like to know more about the guy, and why he did such a thing.
And if at least one or two of those twelve innocent people had a concealed carry, this might have been a heroic story instead of a tragedy.
Sauce:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/sep/17/miller-new-york-times-gets-it-wrong-about-navy-yar/ (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/sep/17/miller-new-york-times-gets-it-wrong-about-navy-yar/)
-
Also how the hell did he get in there with a twelve gauge and 30 shells?! That's a lot to carry i'd think. Has anyone found anything?
-
I don't have anything more to offer the great gun debate. I remain a lover of guns, but still glad we don't have them for the masses.
It wouldn't stop me visiting the US and there are loads of places I always wanted to see. The scariest thing about America is not the guns - for me it is the judicial system. Not sure how much of it is true, but from what I see on TV - extreme sentences and of course 'the death penalty' in some states. That is fuckin scary. I can imagine being wrongly accused of something and never seeing Eng-er-land again.
It is the 'death penalty' along with the general consensus (if it is general and widespread amongst the people) that it's ok to shoot a trespasser and if you happen to kill them - tough shit! it leaves me with an impression of a blatant disregard for human life. ???
-
I don't have anything more to offer the great gun debate. I remain a lover of guns, but still glad we don't have them for the masses.
It wouldn't stop me visiting the US and there are loads of places I always wanted to see. The scariest thing about America is not the guns - for me it is the judicial system. Not sure how much of it is true, but from what I see on TV - extreme sentences and of course 'the death penalty' in some states. That is fuckin scary. I can imagine being wrongly accused of something and never seeing Eng-er-land again.
It is the 'death penalty' along with the general consensus (if it is general and widespread amongst the people) that it's ok to shoot a trespasser and if you happen to kill them - tough shit! it leaves me with an impression of a blatant disregard for human life. ???
I also disagree with blatantly killing someone for simply trespassing or something like that. I would personally be damn sure someone was threatening my life before I pointed a gun at them and pulled the trigger, and even then i'd be aiming for their legs or arms.
-
I don't have anything more to offer the great gun debate. I remain a lover of guns, but still glad we don't have them for the masses.
It wouldn't stop me visiting the US and there are loads of places I always wanted to see. The scariest thing about America is not the guns - for me it is the judicial system. Not sure how much of it is true, but from what I see on TV - extreme sentences and of course 'the death penalty' in some states. That is fuckin scary. I can imagine being wrongly accused of something and never seeing Eng-er-land again.
It is the 'death penalty' along with the general consensus (if it is general and widespread amongst the people) that it's ok to shoot a trespasser and if you happen to kill them - tough shit! it leaves me with an impression of a blatant disregard for human life. ???
There are scarier things in America than the justice system. Actually, almost every other part of the government is scarier than the justice system. I have the impression, living here, that innocent people are rarely convicted and the guilty mostly agree to plea deals. Some of the laws themselves are objectionable, and the implementation of justice is sometimes questionable.
I don't know if you could say that any sort of consensus exists for any political opinion in America. It's just too diverse of a country, although there are occasionally issues that unite us. As far as I know, there is no consensus that it's acceptable to shoot non-violent trespassers, although many will see trespassing and breaking and entering as signs that someone means to do harm.
Incidentally, I see the government of Great Britain as scary. You pay money to support an unelected head of state and a state church; there's no Constitution and Parliament just does whatever it wants; you have few guarantees of freedoms as Americans would define them; the government interferes with every aspect of your lives; the theoretical basis for the authority of the government doesn't derive from the power of the people; and you seem to trust the government.
Those are completely off-the-cuff impressions; correct me if I'm wrong. I realize that some of those also apply to America. :autism:
-
I am inclined to believe that our own leader are no longer elected, Semicolon. Our president also now has the power to override congress and the house as he sees fit, I might add. In many ways, the "free" American society is indeed scarier than Britain.
-
I am inclined to believe that our own leader are no longer elected, Semicolon. Our president also now has the power to override congress and the house as he sees fit, I might add. In many ways, the "free" American society is indeed scarier than Britain.
:-\
-
I am inclined to believe that our own leader are no longer elected, Semicolon. Our president also now has the power to override congress and the house as he sees fit, I might add. In many ways, the "free" American society is indeed scarier than Britain.
:-\
I know. I hate to say it as much as you hate to read it. Maybe us and the limeys should be working together on this, hmmm?
-
And there's TA who will echo your sentiments.
I'll address this since my name was bought up.
I usually don't stay in these debates for very long because it boils down to the simple fact that people like you and Adam are of the opinion that another's rights end where your feelings begin. Do you have a right to have that opinion? Yes. Do I have to agree with it? No.
"Fact"?
Quibbling over a single word
I know that none of your words holds any real importance but this one was nevertheless worth singling out, considering its magical qualities in this context.
-
The US population is (roughly) twice the size. Yet, yearly, more than 11,000 people die yearly in gun-related incidents.
That's a lot, especially if for a moment entertaining your silly notion of the gun being just a tool. Do you think there are more than 11,000 screwdriver-related deaths yearly in the US?
But that's just silly, isn't it?
Yes, it's silly. It's a lot compared to the gun deaths in Japan but not compared to the size of the US population, that is 317000000.
Remember how to calculate percentages? Japan's population is roughly 130 million.
-
But OK, I'll consider the utilitarist argument for a short moment. How many people in Syria are being raped, molested and murdered now because they don't have the weapons to defend themselves? How many Jews died because they didn't have the weapons to defend themselves against the nazis? How many citizens of the Soviet Union, who couldn't defend themselves against Stalins thugs? Quite a few more than 11000 out of 317000000.
I didn't know there was a war going on in the US.
-
So how do we decide who is a burden and who isn't? Or do you just pick and choose yourself?
Lol no. You decide someone is a burden if they are only taking from everyone and not giving anything back.
bur·den 1 (bûrdn)
n.
1. Something that is carried.
2.
a. Something that is emotionally difficult to bear.
b. A source of great worry or stress; weight: The burden of economic sacrifice rests on the workers of the plant.
3. A responsibility or duty: The burden of organizing the campaign fell to me.
4. Nautical
a. The amount of cargo that a vessel can carry.
b. The weight of the cargo carried by a vessel at one time.
5. The amount of a disease-causing entity present in an organism.
tr.v. bur·dened, bur·den·ing, bur·dens
1. To weigh down; oppress.
2. To load or overload.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Middle English, from Old English byrthen; see bher-1 in Indo-European roots.]
Synonyms: burden1, affliction, cross, trial, tribulation
These nouns denote something onerous or troublesome: the burden of a guilty conscience; indebtedness that is an affliction; a temper that is her cross; a troublemaker who is a trial to the teacher; suffered many tribulations in rising from poverty. See Also Synonyms at substance.
5. The amount of a disease-causing entity present in an organism.
I wouldn't want to live in a society governed by your rules.
-
/shrug
You didn't address mine. You are still defensive, though.
Explain to me how I didn't address yours?
You did? Where?
How do you like our hat? Cooked?
::)
Actually, no. I don't think it's possible to underestimate you.
Thanks for confirming my point.
Sorry. Didn't realise you had one.
Explains why you come off as a fanatic. Religion starts where rationality ends.
Hah, i'm an atheist, bro. I just don't thing a nation's constitution should be taken so lightly.
You are the one saying that your constitution is sacred, not me. Plenty of legislation I don't take lightly, but it doesn't mean I consider them sacred or above a debate.
Actually the original topic was about allowing the blind to carry guns. I should know. I started it.
But I was wrong about this being merely about your feelings. It's clearly also about your religion.
Again, I have no religion. And yeah, that's what I said. This thread started on the basis of legislations in Iowa. Iowa is an American state. You would never have made this thread if you hadn't heard what was going on in this American state. :zoinks:
So? I spot an unusually moronic topic on the web. The topic happens to be about Iowa's gun laws.
And you do have a religion. You treat the US constitution the same as the religious would treat their god. Makes the subject very difficult to discuss since you don't treat it rationally.
Beats your solution to use a gun. That's a common theme with people like you.
And this is our fundemental disagreement. You are being ambiguous on purpose, but I will meet this point directly. Pretending something is not there will not solve a problem. In reality where the grown-ups live, its common knowledge that one must address problems as they develop or they will grow into a larger problem. As to your ambiguous statement, I laughed.
Eh?
Are you really saying that you meant what you suggested? Should TA worry?
Beats your solution to use a gun.
Yeah whatever man. Use a gun for what? Do you even know?
There's an echo here. Could have sworn that I already addressed your reply to this.
You said it, I merely commented on your realisation.
It wasn't a realization. Dance around all you like sir, i'm actually trying to play ball with you.
But failing miserably. I'm only doing this for entertainment. Can't argue serious topics with the religious.
You can save more by closing down schools, too.
Its foolish to get rid of anything, which again seems to be a common theme with you. I said nothing of banning anything or closing anything down. I stated that the welfare state design in the U.K. would destroy my country, which is already several trillion dollars in the red.
One would think you had more important matters on your mind than guns, then.
Where did I suggest that you need the NHS, btw?
If you want a serious argument, produce serious comments.
I have been. You just don't like them.
I didn't see any, sorry.
Here's a question about your religion:
If ignoring the practicalities of getting rid of every firearm there is, if for a moment imagining it was possible (which, btw, I don't think it is), do you think the world would be a better place? A yes or no will do.
I have no religion, and no. People will continue to kill each other. You are looking to change the human condition, I think.
One would think that it would be a simple question to answer. It's called a hypothetical, Rage. Did you notice my parenthetical comment, in there?
The US population is (roughly) twice the size. Yet, yearly, more than 11,000 people die yearly in gun-related incidents.
Big problem with the language there.
There's a big problem there, that we agree on, but it's not related to the language.
more than 11,000 people die yearly in gun-related incidents.
How many of those were criminals killing each other, or being killed by victims of crime in self defense hmmm? How many of those were actually lives of law abiding citizens saved?
And you took the bait.
Those numbers (from Japan and the US) are directly comparable with each other. That's the point.
This topic is not about health care, though. It's an important subject but I suggest you to start a separate thread for it.
I'm not arguing health care and you know it. I used a very large number (195,000 deaths) to illustrate that there are other very important life saving things that wind up killing a lot of people. More than your 11,000 people, I might add. I don't hear you rallying the social justice warriors to ban hospitals, because they are high priority in your mind, right? (mine too, but so are guns)
So yeah, thanks for the dance. :LOL:
There's a big difference between hospitals and guns. Can you tell the class what that difference is?
Your dancing skills leave a lot to be desired.
-
If it is so debilitating that they are an invalid, then should be actively seeking help so that they can properly cope and resume being a productive member of their community.
And what if they are, and can't get help?
-
But OK, I'll consider the utilitarist argument for a short moment. How many people in Syria are being raped, molested and murdered now because they don't have the weapons to defend themselves? How many Jews died because they didn't have the weapons to defend themselves against the nazis? How many citizens of the Soviet Union, who couldn't defend themselves against Stalins thugs? Quite a few more than 11000 out of 317000000.
I didn't know there was a war going on in the US.
There wasn't a war going on in the Soviet Union most of the time Stalin were murdering 10-15% of the population or so either. And Jews were taken to camps in Germany already in 1933 although not extermination camps. You can't give any guarantees what the future will look like.
-
The US population is (roughly) twice the size. Yet, yearly, more than 11,000 people die yearly in gun-related incidents.
That's a lot, especially if for a moment entertaining your silly notion of the gun being just a tool. Do you think there are more than 11,000 screwdriver-related deaths yearly in the US?
But that's just silly, isn't it?
Yes, it's silly. It's a lot compared to the gun deaths in Japan but not compared to the size of the US population, that is 317000000.
Remember how to calculate percentages? Japan's population is roughly 130 million.
Yes, the percentage is "big" compared to the percentage in Japan. 11000 out of 317 millions is in itself a very small percentage, though. 0.03% of the American population is killed by firearms every year. So what? 0.1% of the Swedes are killed by cigarettes each year.
Now you will say that most dying of tobacco in Sweden are smokers themselves and chose that. But most Americans are in favour of free guns and chose that too. Freedom is never free.
-
There's a big difference between hospitals and guns. Can you tell the class what that difference is?
Your dancing skills leave a lot to be desired.
Apparently around 184000 dead people a year. >:(
And you took the bait.
Those numbers (from Japan and the US) are directly comparable with each other. That's the point.
You're still not answering my questions. I'm doing my best to play ball with you, man.
There's a big problem there, that we agree on, but it's not related to the language.
Yeah, its mostly just people like you who think pretending things aren't there is the best solution.
One would think that it would be a simple question to answer. It's called a hypothetical, Rage. Did you notice my parenthetical comment, in there?
I don't entertain childish fantasy.
I didn't see any, sorry.
I'm being serious for the most part, buddy. You're the one joking around.
One would think you had more important matters on your mind than guns, then.
Where did I suggest that you need the NHS, btw?
You brought up healthcare more than once. You seem to think it a good idea to inflict UK laws and routines on my country, so its only logical your healthcare suggestions would follow that pattern.
But failing miserably. I'm only doing this for entertainment. Can't argue serious topics with the religious.
I am -not- failing. I am trying to debate with someone who is completely unwilling to cooperate. I think i'm doing a fine job, considering.
There's an echo here. Could have sworn that I already addressed your reply to this.
No you didn't.
So? I spot an unusually moronic topic on the web. The topic happens to be about Iowa's gun laws.
You're full of shit, sir. This little particular quote exchange started because you were whining about Lit "always" having to pop in and make things about America. It was about America anyway. I pointed that out, that the thread was originally about legislations in Iowa, and Lit and I were discussing the second amendment.
Sorry. Didn't realise you had one.
Well don't strain yourself there, chuckles.
You are the one saying that your constitution is sacred, not me. Plenty of legislation I don't take lightly, but it doesn't mean I consider them sacred or above a debate.
You sure take another country's legislations lightly. Especially the ones that protect the only rights they have left.
(Which is I might add, the closest thing to something sacred that could exist for the American people. Nice work continually making fun of it, you fucking asshole. Watching other nations crumble is better than TV, huh?)
And what if they are, and can't get help?
If they are honestly trying to get help, here in my country and they somehow can't, then something is VERY WRONG. We're already about a step away from a welfare state.
-
Incidentally, I see the government of Great Britain as scary. You pay money to support an unelected head of state and a state church; there's no Constitution and Parliament just does whatever it wants; you have few guarantees of freedoms as Americans would define them; the government interferes with every aspect of your lives; the theoretical basis for the authority of the government doesn't derive from the power of the people; and you seem to trust the government.
Monarchy = totally agree with you. Would abolish if I could.
State church = again, completely agree that this is bullshit. in all fairness though, despite the fact that we are TECHNICALLY more religious than the US, in reality we are much more secular.
Constitution = not 100 sure. Part of me would like a proper constitution like the US, but it's not something I feel strongly about. we have an uncodified constitution. places like the US really needed a proper written constitution becuase of the way your country came about. the UK is much more different. our laws have evolved over hundreds of years and are actually relatively stable. I don't think it's necessary for us really. the US is very different
Parliament just does whatever it wants = not really sure what you mean there so can't comment
Few guarantees of freedoms = again, I think this is similar to the constitution thing. It's not set in stone in the same way that it is in the US. I don't know whether it's much of a problem though tbh. The freedoms that are at risk here are at risk in the US too. (internet laws etc)
Govt interferes in every aspect of our lives = I would disagree with this. I support big govt though and this seems to be something that Americans are generally DEAD SET AGAINST. I in no way support govt interfering in every aspect of people's lives, but I support big govt. Which is what I think we're talking about here?
The British people definitely do not trust the government btw. I think Americans tend to think of us as trusting the govt because we aren't so strongly against it in the way that you are. The British people definitely do not trust the govt though.
-
::)
You can't have a big government that doesn't intrude.
-
You can't have a big government that doesn't intrude.
Exactly. I mean what else are they going to do with such a large staff and billions upon billions of dollars of funding? They're going to busybody around.
Constitution = not 100 sure. Part of me would like a proper constitution like the US, but it's not something I feel strongly about. we have an uncodified constitution. places like the US really needed a proper written constitution becuase of the way your country came about. the UK is much more different. our laws have evolved over hundreds of years and are actually relatively stable. I don't think it's necessary for us really. the US is very different
Well, it would be the greatest thing ever actually. One problem: It can be manipulated against the people's will somehow. I don't fully understand how this keeps happening, but now we need to apply for a permit just to complain about it! Yeah, if you want to engage in peaceful protest anywhere near a government building, you need a "free speech permit"! Home of the free my ass, right?
Monarchy = totally agree with you. Would abolish if I could.
Thirded. Monarchy is ridiculous.
State church = again, completely agree that this is bullshit. in all fairness though, despite the fact that we are TECHNICALLY more religious than the US, in reality we are much more secular.
To be totally honest I hate the church. I personally feel it to be degenerate in every aspect, but I know that freedom of spirituality is important and that I share the world with billions of other minds. So I try to be quiet about it.
Parliament just does whatever it wants = not really sure what you mean there so can't comment
*nods*
Few guarantees of freedoms = again, I think this is similar to the constitution thing. It's not set in stone in the same way that it is in the US. I don't know whether it's much of a problem though tbh. The freedoms that are at risk here are at risk in the US too. (internet laws etc)
Both agree and disagree. I'll split it up.
It's not set in stone in the same way that it is in the US.
Oh man, you're way off here dude. Our last couple of presidents have been repeatedly wiping their asses with our constitution and modifying what they can't throw out to garauntee less civil rights. Its been going on for some time now.
The freedoms that are at risk here are at risk in the US too. (internet laws etc)
Totally agree with this one, and its a very serious problem. With the multibillion dollar global spying and internet decryption programs in full swing, this could be the most prominent threat to democracy, EVER. A global stranglehold, really.
I think Americans tend to think of us as trusting the govt because we aren't so strongly against it in the way that you are.
And this may be why we misunderstand each other so often. Why aren't you openly denouncing attacks on civil rights and pointless wars? Is this just some kind of a british thing?
-
I don't understand the last point ^
House of Commons just voted against war in Syria BECAUSE of public opinion. People were definitely speaking up against it
And before Iraq there were BIG anti-war protests. Didn't stop them that time, of course, but people definitely spoke up
and Lit, I said the govt doesn't intrude in EVERYTHING. Of course more is regulated officially with big govt.
-
Incidentally, I see the government of Great Britain as scary. You pay money to support an unelected head of state and a state church; there's no Constitution and Parliament just does whatever it wants; you have few guarantees of freedoms as Americans would define them; the government interferes with every aspect of your lives; the theoretical basis for the authority of the government doesn't derive from the power of the people; and you seem to trust the government.
Monarchy = totally agree with you. Would abolish if I could.
State church = again, completely agree that this is bullshit. in all fairness though, despite the fact that we are TECHNICALLY more religious than the US, in reality we are much more secular.
Constitution = not 100 sure. Part of me would like a proper constitution like the US, but it's not something I feel strongly about. we have an uncodified constitution. places like the US really needed a proper written constitution becuase of the way your country came about. the UK is much more different. our laws have evolved over hundreds of years and are actually relatively stable. I don't think it's necessary for us really. the US is very different
Parliament just does whatever it wants = not really sure what you mean there so can't comment
Few guarantees of freedoms = again, I think this is similar to the constitution thing. It's not set in stone in the same way that it is in the US. I don't know whether it's much of a problem though tbh. The freedoms that are at risk here are at risk in the US too. (internet laws etc)
Govt interferes in every aspect of our lives = I would disagree with this. I support big govt though and this seems to be something that Americans are generally DEAD SET AGAINST. I in no way support govt interfering in every aspect of people's lives, but I support big govt. Which is what I think we're talking about here?
The British people definitely do not trust the government btw. I think Americans tend to think of us as trusting the govt because we aren't so strongly against it in the way that you are. The British people definitely do not trust the govt though.
You have parliamentary supremacy, correct? In the UK, Parliament can make any law it wants to. In the US, Congress can't legally enact certain laws. For example, Congress can't pass a law that declares someone guilty of a particular crime.
One of the biggest differences is the basis for the legitimacy of the government. In the UK, power is theoretically drawn from the monarch. In the US, the government's power is willingly surrendered by the general populace in order to promote the common good. We fought, as one nation, for our independence. I don't like big government because, under the American system, the people don't surrender any more power than the government needs to perform its basic functions. We have the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to enforce this.
I don't understand what would happen if your government started passing laws that a vast majority of Brits didn't like. What could you do about it? The Constitution is a way for the government to check its own power, and for the people to check the government.
-
I don't understand the last point ^
House of Commons just voted against war in Syria BECAUSE of public opinion. People were definitely speaking up against it
And before Iraq there were BIG anti-war protests. Didn't stop them that time, of course, but people definitely spoke up
and Lit, I said the govt doesn't intrude in EVERYTHING. Of course more is regulated officially with big govt.
In simpler terms, how can you folks not be boiling over with anger at this point? As far as I know you're getting fucked pretty hard over there too.
-
Also, here goes piers again, shooting his mouth off with false statements. Does anyone in England like him even?
Piers Morgan Wrongfully Claimed Naval Yard Shooter Bought AR 15 in Virginia (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LgrDAZIuhuU#)
I got curious about this of course, since the guy for some reason seemed to have no motive at all. After some digging, I still don't know shit about him. I'm left with even more questions about this.
Why did he kill a dozen people?
How did he get onto a military post with a large shotgun and thirty shells?
What about that guy they said may have been helping him? That just kind of disappeared didn't it?
What the fuck was with the order to stand down?
What is his background? What kind of a guy was he? Did he have a father and mother? History of mental illness?
WHY AND HOW? I WANT TO KNOW AND THE PISS STREAM MEDIA IS NOT PROVIDING ANSWERS LIKE THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO!
-
But OK, I'll consider the utilitarist argument for a short moment. How many people in Syria are being raped, molested and murdered now because they don't have the weapons to defend themselves? How many Jews died because they didn't have the weapons to defend themselves against the nazis? How many citizens of the Soviet Union, who couldn't defend themselves against Stalins thugs? Quite a few more than 11000 out of 317000000.
I didn't know there was a war going on in the US.
There wasn't a war going on in the Soviet Union most of the time Stalin were murdering 10-15% of the population or so either. And Jews were taken to camps in Germany already in 1933 although not extermination camps. You can't give any guarantees what the future will look like.
Yes. The pre-war Germany and Stalin's Soviet Union are relevant in this context. I stand corrected. :P
-
There's a big difference between hospitals and guns. Can you tell the class what that difference is?
Your dancing skills leave a lot to be desired.
Apparently around 184000 dead people a year. >:(
Clever but irrelevant. Again, if you want to discuss health care, we can. Just start a thread.
And you took the bait.
Those numbers (from Japan and the US) are directly comparable with each other. That's the point.
You're still not answering my questions. I'm doing my best to play ball with you, man.
You're not addressing my points.
You have to do better, simple as that.
There's a big problem there, that we agree on, but it's not related to the language.
Yeah, its mostly just people like you who think pretending things aren't there is the best solution.
I realise the numbers are problematic for your arguments.
One would think that it would be a simple question to answer. It's called a hypothetical, Rage. Did you notice my parenthetical comment, in there?
I don't entertain childish fantasy.
Then why are you posting?
I didn't see any, sorry.
I'm being serious for the most part, buddy. You're the one joking around.
If the thread warrants a serious post, I'll write one. I'm not holding my breath, though.
One would think you had more important matters on your mind than guns, then.
Where did I suggest that you need the NHS, btw?
You brought up healthcare more than once. You seem to think it a good idea to inflict UK laws and routines on my country, so its only logical your healthcare suggestions would follow that pattern.
Please provide a single quote form this thread where I suggest you should adopt UK laws and routines.
But failing miserably. I'm only doing this for entertainment. Can't argue serious topics with the religious.
I am -not- failing. I am trying to debate with someone who is completely unwilling to cooperate. I think i'm doing a fine job, considering.
You provide adequate target practice but that's about it. Sorry.
There's an echo here. Could have sworn that I already addressed your reply to this.
No you didn't.
You didn't like the answer. Big difference.
So? I spot an unusually moronic topic on the web. The topic happens to be about Iowa's gun laws.
You're full of shit, sir. This little particular quote exchange started because you were whining about Lit "always" having to pop in and make things about America. It was about America anyway. I pointed that out, that the thread was originally about legislations in Iowa, and Lit and I were discussing the second amendment.
You might want to reread the thread. I can't be bothered to quote the relevant posts here but it shouldn't be difficult. Tedious but not difficult.
Sorry. Didn't realise you had one.
Well don't strain yourself there, chuckles.
Trust me, I'm not.
You are the one saying that your constitution is sacred, not me. Plenty of legislation I don't take lightly, but it doesn't mean I consider them sacred or above a debate.
You sure take another country's legislations lightly. Especially the ones that protect the only rights they have left.
(Which is I might add, the closest thing to something sacred that could exist for the American people. Nice work continually making fun of it, you fucking asshole. Watching other nations crumble is better than TV, huh?)
I am not making fun of your legislation. I am pointing out problems with it. No legislation should be so *sacred* that it cannot be discussed and debated.
The US constitution is a touchy subject for you. I can't help noticing that it is when criticising it that you get mad and start with the name calling. Like here.
I think it's safe to say that it is sacred to a lot of people in the US. It is a weakness you have, IMO, because it can effectively keep you from evolving.
But I don't want to see the US crumble. It is a nation with problems but it is also a great nation, one that contributes so much more to the world than the nonsense that is usually on the news. Please don't think I dislike your country or your people just because I criticise your constitution.
And what if they are, and can't get help?
If they are honestly trying to get help, here in my country and they somehow can't, then something is VERY WRONG. We're already about a step away from a welfare state.
Actually something IS very wrong and it has nothing to do with you being a welfare state.
-
Also, here goes piers again, shooting his mouth off with false statements. Does anyone in England like him even?
Jeremy Clarkson doesn't. :zoinks:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_2ZsMFY0fg (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_2ZsMFY0fg)
-
The Constitution is a way for the government to check its own power, and for the people to check the government.
And how do you think it's working?
-
But OK, I'll consider the utilitarist argument for a short moment. How many people in Syria are being raped, molested and murdered now because they don't have the weapons to defend themselves? How many Jews died because they didn't have the weapons to defend themselves against the nazis? How many citizens of the Soviet Union, who couldn't defend themselves against Stalins thugs? Quite a few more than 11000 out of 317000000.
I didn't know there was a war going on in the US.
There wasn't a war going on in the Soviet Union most of the time Stalin were murdering 10-15% of the population or so either. And Jews were taken to camps in Germany already in 1933 although not extermination camps. You can't give any guarantees what the future will look like.
Yes. The pre-war Germany and Stalin's Soviet Union are relevant in this context. I stand corrected. :P
Guantanamo is real. The NSA shit is real. "War against terror" is real. You have no idea how this might escalate in 10-20 years.
In 1985, could you have foreseen what the world would look like today?
-
The Constitution is a way for the government to check its own power, and for the people to check the government.
And how do you think it's working?
Will it work better if they can't defend themselves?
-
The Constitution is a way for the government to check its own power, and for the people to check the government.
And how do you think it's working?
Our system is not working well at the moment, but that's because the Constitution is being ignored and no one is willing to call the President or Congress on it. If anything, we need a stronger Constitution.
You seem to think that the Constitution gives us the right to bear arms. It doesn't; we already have that right. The Constitution just enforces it.
-
He doesn't understand the concept of natural rights. Most Europeans are still stuck in the thinking when kings and emperors ruled and rights were something that the state gave you.
-
Also how the hell did he get in there with a twelve gauge and 30 shells?! That's a lot to carry i'd think. Has anyone found anything?
back pack....like the one Dora uses.
-
Dora :viking:
German rail guns DORA & LEOPOLD of ww2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PrsWaHex_BU#)
-
You have parliamentary supremacy, correct? In the UK, Parliament can make any law it wants to. In the US, Congress can't legally enact certain laws. For example, Congress can't pass a law that declares someone guilty of a particular crime.
One of the biggest differences is the basis for the legitimacy of the government. In the UK, power is theoretically drawn from the monarch. In the US, the government's power is willingly surrendered by the general populace in order to promote the common good. We fought, as one nation, for our independence. I don't like big government because, under the American system, the people don't surrender any more power than the government needs to perform its basic functions. We have the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to enforce this.
I don't understand what would happen if your government started passing laws that a vast majority of Brits didn't like. What could you do about it? The Constitution is a way for the government to check its own power, and for the people to check the government.
There are 650 seats in parliament. Each seat represents an area of the UK and whoever controls that seat is voted for by it's residents in an election. To form a government in the UK you need a majority of 326 seats.
New laws need to be voted for in parliament also and a strong government who have a large majority will achieve this quite easily.
However, the current government did not get a majority and need the cooperation of their coalition partners The Liberal Democrats.
You will no doubt have noted that our Prime Minister recently asked Parliament about military action in Syria. He lost that vote.
It is interesting to note that our Prime Minister and your President could have taken action anyway.
Our government have and do still apply unpopular laws. The infamous poll tax is one of them. I personally clashed with police during an anti poll tax demonstration that turned into a riot. The people spoke. The poll tax was scrapped.
The new 'bedroom tax' is a new one by the tory party. I believe it will cost them the next election.
I should also state that the involvement of the Monarchy in government is symbolic only. They never shout or side with a political party.
-
No one ever chose to have a government in the first place, not anymore than anyone ever chose to get raped.
-
Take my example with a farmer before the industrial revolution. Why the hell would he want a government? To be forced to pay tax and forced to go to war and die for the fucking king?
-
The US constitution is a touchy subject for you. I can't help noticing that it is when criticising it that you get mad and start with the name calling. Like here.
I think it's safe to say that it is sacred to a lot of people in the US. It is a weakness you have, IMO, because it can effectively keep you from evolving.
But I don't want to see the US crumble. It is a nation with problems but it is also a great nation, one that contributes so much more to the world than the nonsense that is usually on the news. Please don't think I dislike your country or your people just because I criticise your constitution.
Ok. I think we've reached the root of our disagreement. I see things pretty much the opposite of what you do. The U.S. constitution is actually one of the last American things in my country, and its beginning to die. My government has begun to completely ignore it and operate almost completely separate of the people which was not how this nation was designed to run.
I agree with Semicolon. If we're going to change the constitution, we need to make it much stronger.
-
Also how the hell did he get in there with a twelve gauge and 30 shells?! That's a lot to carry i'd think. Has anyone found anything?
back pack....like the one Dora uses.
I don't think you can put such a large shotgun in a backpack, dude. I was envisioning kind of a Kyle reese from terminator thing, maybe he sawed off part of the stock and slipped it under his clothing?
-
You have parliamentary supremacy, correct? In the UK, Parliament can make any law it wants to. In the US, Congress can't legally enact certain laws. For example, Congress can't pass a law that declares someone guilty of a particular crime.
One of the biggest differences is the basis for the legitimacy of the government. In the UK, power is theoretically drawn from the monarch. In the US, the government's power is willingly surrendered by the general populace in order to promote the common good. We fought, as one nation, for our independence. I don't like big government because, under the American system, the people don't surrender any more power than the government needs to perform its basic functions. We have the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to enforce this.
I don't understand what would happen if your government started passing laws that a vast majority of Brits didn't like. What could you do about it? The Constitution is a way for the government to check its own power, and for the people to check the government.
There are 650 seats in parliament. Each seat represents an area of the UK and whoever controls that seat is voted for by it's residents in an election. To form a government in the UK you need a majority of 326 seats.
New laws need to be voted for in parliament also and a strong government who have a large majority will achieve this quite easily.
However, the current government did not get a majority and need the cooperation of their coalition partners The Liberal Democrats.
You will no doubt have noted that our Prime Minister recently asked Parliament about military action in Syria. He lost that vote.
It is interesting to note that our Prime Minister and your President could have taken action anyway.
Our government have and do still apply unpopular laws. The infamous poll tax is one of them. I personally clashed with police during an anti poll tax demonstration that turned into a riot. The people spoke. The poll tax was scrapped.
The new 'bedroom tax' is a new one by the tory party. I believe it will cost them the next election.
I should also state that the involvement of the Monarchy in government is symbolic only. They never shout or side with a political party.
If you are satisfied that you have a voice in your government, then don't feel that you need to impose American values on yourself. I would not want to live under a system where one branch of the government can do whatever it wants, given a majority, and I wouldn't want my taxes to support even a symbolic monarchy. To me, the basic principles that underlie the US are too antithetical to a monarchy or a state church to support either one. All people can't be created equal if some of them get special rights by virtue of nobility.
-
Wonderful diagram that sums up the situation here.
(https://scontent-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/s403x403/1374335_579258765470564_1534951421_n.jpg)
-
I got curious about this of course, since the guy for some reason seemed to have no motive at all. After some digging, I still don't know shit about him. I'm left with even more questions about this.
Why did he kill a dozen people?
How did he get onto a military post with a large shotgun and thirty shells?
What about that guy they said may have been helping him? That just kind of disappeared didn't it?
What the fuck was with the order to stand down?
What is his background? What kind of a guy was he? Did he have a father and mother? History of mental illness?
WHY AND HOW? I WANT TO KNOW AND THE PISS STREAM MEDIA IS NOT PROVIDING ANSWERS LIKE THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO!
I understand his motivation was intrinsic. As opposed to the mass shootings in Kenya which was motivated extrinsically.
I believe he had a military naval career which was cut short due to some disciplinary action. That is one bone of contention. I believe he was working within the naval base for a temp agency doing some menial task. Adding insult to injury. It has also been reported that he was present during 9/11 and helped with the rescue of injured victims. Possible PTSD ?
I can see how he might feel badly treated by the military and working in that environment doing a civilian job would only amplify these feelings. If he had no one to talk to about this then those feelings would build up and occupy more and more of his conscious mind. Anger, rage, disgruntled, feeling of being 'wronged', jealousy of military personnel, If it is true about 9/11 and possibly PTSD as an added ingredient then I guess he was a ticking time bomb.
Looking at trying to prevent future instances I would suggest ex military, particularly those who's career has been blocked due to misconduct or resulting in disciplinary action, are offered some support. Possibly even deterring them from taking civilian jobs within a military environment.
Incidentally I feel all ex military do not get nearly enough help. Not really talking about that man now, but just 'in general'. I know in the UK there are many on the streets, whose marriage has failed, who struggled to get a job simply because they struggled to cope on civvy street. Struggled without the routine and structure offered by, the army, for example.
I don't think the general public appreciate what soldiers do. The things they endure and the price they pay, sometimes the ultimate price. At the end of their career they are just tossed aside. Adjusting is not always easy. They deserve better.
-
If you are satisfied that you have a voice in your government, then don't feel that you need to impose American values on yourself. I would not want to live under a system where one branch of the government can do whatever it wants, given a majority, and I wouldn't want my taxes to support even a symbolic monarchy. To me, the basic principles that underlie the US are too antithetical to a monarchy or a state church to support either one. All people can't be created equal if some of them get special rights by virtue of nobility.
Didn't say I was satisfied. :P
Just trying to explain how it is. I am no Royalist either. I know that recently The Queen has started to pay tax. I really have no idea on what they (Monarchy) cost compared with the revenue they bring in. It would be interesting to see.
I am against any form of class structure.
-
Off with their heads! :arrr: :arrr: :arrr:
-
How is it a natural right? I don't understand that.
To me, natural rights are things like the right to life, freedom of thought, freedom of speech etc
Where does a gun come in to that?
ALso Lit, I find it amusing how your automatic response to someone disagreeing with you is always, "he doesn't understand this, he doesn't understand that, he doesn't understand tha concept of x, y or z"
No. We disagree with you. That does not make us stupid.
-
I don't understand the last point ^
House of Commons just voted against war in Syria BECAUSE of public opinion. People were definitely speaking up against it
And before Iraq there were BIG anti-war protests. Didn't stop them that time, of course, but people definitely spoke up
and Lit, I said the govt doesn't intrude in EVERYTHING. Of course more is regulated officially with big govt.
In simpler terms, how can you folks not be boiling over with anger at this point? As far as I know you're getting fucked pretty hard over there too.
I AM angry. Lots of people are agnry. Just not necessarily about the things that you think we should be angry about. People are angry about the break up of the NHS etc. Not the lack of guns.
-
No one ever chose to have a government in the first place, not anymore than anyone ever chose to get raped.
Most sensible people wouldn't agree with you though. Most people accept that, while not perfect, govt is necessary
-
If you are satisfied that you have a voice in your government, then don't feel that you need to impose American values on yourself. I would not want to live under a system where one branch of the government can do whatever it wants, given a majority, and I wouldn't want my taxes to support even a symbolic monarchy. To me, the basic principles that underlie the US are too antithetical to a monarchy or a state church to support either one. All people can't be created equal if some of them get special rights by virtue of nobility.
You won't find many people who are "satisfied" with the current situation.
I agree about the monarchy. Many people do. Not much more I can say on that really. Although as bodie said, it is mostly symbolical. It's not like a dictatorship.
-
You have parliamentary supremacy, correct? In the UK, Parliament can make any law it wants to. In the US, Congress can't legally enact certain laws. For example, Congress can't pass a law that declares someone guilty of a particular crime.
One of the biggest differences is the basis for the legitimacy of the government. In the UK, power is theoretically drawn from the monarch. In the US, the government's power is willingly surrendered by the general populace in order to promote the common good. We fought, as one nation, for our independence. I don't like big government because, under the American system, the people don't surrender any more power than the government needs to perform its basic functions. We have the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to enforce this.
I don't understand what would happen if your government started passing laws that a vast majority of Brits didn't like. What could you do about it? The Constitution is a way for the government to check its own power, and for the people to check the government.
There is plenty we can do about it. Protest for a start.
We have a scum-of-the-earth govt in power atm, but they will be voted out at the next election becuase people don't like what they're proposing. You get what you vote for.
Laws go thru several readings and thru both houses before they are passed. People can lobby their MPs to vote a certain way in particularly important issues
-
How is it a natural right? I don't understand that.
To me, natural rights are things like the right to life, freedom of thought, freedom of speech etc
Where does a gun come in to that?
Everything that is not malum in se (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malum_in_se) is a natural right.
ALso Lit, I find it amusing how your automatic response to someone disagreeing with you is always, "he doesn't understand this, he doesn't understand that, he doesn't understand tha concept of x, y or z"
No. We disagree with you. That does not make us stupid.
You are definitely less intelligent than I am. In odeon's case it's about that double bind. He knows that I'm right when I'm saying that the state might murder us one day, but that is a fact so intolerable that he chooses to pretend that it couldn't happen and instead talks into himself that the state is protecting us.
-
Also, here goes piers again, shooting his mouth off with false statements. Does anyone in England like him even?
I don't. He's a dick. I agree with him about guns though.
-
lol I am definitely less intelligent than u?
I love how you know that over the internet.
-
If you are satisfied that you have a voice in your government, then don't feel that you need to impose American values on yourself. I would not want to live under a system where one branch of the government can do whatever it wants, given a majority, and I wouldn't want my taxes to support even a symbolic monarchy. To me, the basic principles that underlie the US are too antithetical to a monarchy or a state church to support either one. All people can't be created equal if some of them get special rights by virtue of nobility.
You won't find many people who are "satisfied" with the current situation.
I agree about the monarchy. Many people do. Not much more I can say on that really. Although as bodie said, it is mostly symbolical. It's not like a dictatorship.
No, the dictatorship is run by the government and the EU.
-
Of course
-
lol I am definitely less intelligent than u?
I love how you know that over the internet.
You are less intelligent, since it's obvious that you have a limited understanding of some things.
In odeon's case it is that he simply rejects facts that are too unpleasant. In your case it's a lack of understanding what it's all about in the first place.
-
No one ever chose to have a government in the first place, not anymore than anyone ever chose to get raped.
Most sensible people wouldn't agree with you though. Most people accept that, while not perfect, govt is necessary
MP's are there to work for their constituents. They represent (us) in parliament. Some only have an interest in helping the rich get richer.
George Osborne is our Tory Chancellor and he announced today he is going to spend his time going to court to challenge a European ruling that states big bankers can only limit the fat bonus they get to x2 their annual pay. He wants to help the few fat cats get fatter.
The leader of the opposition (Labour) have pledged to force energy companies to freeze their prices for 20 months if they get elected in 2015. Many frail and old people will die this winter because they can't afford to heat their homes.
See the contrast? I hate it when people say "they're all the same" they are clearly not.
-
No one ever chose to have a government in the first place, not anymore than anyone ever chose to get raped.
Most sensible people wouldn't agree with you though. Most people accept that, while not perfect, govt is necessary
For what?
Let's go back to 1750. You are an independent farmer. What the hell do you need a government for? They only steal the fruits of your labour and send you to die for them in wars.
-
lol I am definitely less intelligent than u?
I love how you know that over the internet.
You are less intelligent, since it's obvious that you have a limited understanding of some things.
In odeon's case it is that he simply rejects facts that are too unpleasant. In your case it's a lack of understanding what it's all about in the first place.
Everybody has a limited understanding
And obviously I understand some things less than others
You do too
personally I don't think I'm less intelligent than you.
bodie - yeah I hear that a lot when we go canvassing. that MPs are all the same, voting makes no difference etc etc. A lot of people think that. TO an extent, they have a point. all the main parties are close to the centre these days. which is understadnable. But to say that the Tories and Labour are the same is just wrong.
Have you seen any of the Labour party conference this week btw?
A guy a know from my old office was on the stage behind Ed during his speech lol.
Liam Byrne made a speech the other day on welfare. made me think of this place :laugh:
one of the things he mentioned was how proud the british people are of our NHS
apparently andy burnham made a good speech as well. haven't heard it yet tho
-
No, they're not the same. You can vote for the conservatives, that are like cancer or the social-"liberals" that are "just" like influenza with pneumonia.
-
Yeah I seen a few speeches from the conference. Milliband's was excellent. He spoke for over an hour with no notes or prompts.
Before the conference I would have said the next election would be a battle of centre politics.
I now think it will be left v right. I don't think Labour have shifted too far to the left. Just enough. Of course, any lean to the left, no matter how slight has the advantage of making the Tory party appear more right :zoinks:
(probably not making sense to most of you but hopefully Adam will 'get' my meaning.)
-
So - what need of a government does an independent farmer have?
-
Yeah I seen a few speeches from the conference. Milliband's was excellent. He spoke for over an hour with no notes or prompts.
Before the conference I would have said the next election would be a battle of centre politics.
I now think it will be left v right. I don't think Labour have shifted too far to the left. Just enough. Of course, any lean to the left, no matter how slight has the advantage of making the Tory party appear more right :zoinks:
(probably not making sense to most of you but hopefully Adam will 'get' my meaning.)
:agreed:
I know what u mean
And Ed often does speeches without notes or autocue I think. takes some skill to make a good speech like that.
it's good that we're getting some "big" policies out there. people have been criticising us a lot for not really speaking up and for being a weak opposition, so I think we really needed to start getting it out there now. I'm glad we've got some more concrete policies now and have explicitly said we're repeal some of the coalition bullshit
That's what people need to hear
I just hope we don't pander too much to the Right with immigration/welfare.
-
I'm still waiting. What need of a government does an independent farmer have?
-
^He needs one to organise shooting parties to kill indigenous badgers who are suspected of infecting his cattle with TB. :zoinks:
-
:tard:
-
One independent farmer might not need a government for HIMSELF
Society needs government thouhg
-
One independent farmer might not need a government for HIMSELF
Society needs government thouhg
Why? If you don't need a government as an individual you don't need a government as a collective either.
The whole concept of a government is totally perverted.
-
One independent farmer might not need a government for HIMSELF
Society needs government thouhg
Why? If you don't need a government as an individual you don't need a government as a collective either.
???
How does that make sense?
-
One independent farmer might not need a government for HIMSELF
Society needs government thouhg
Why? If you don't need a government as an individual you don't need a government as a collective either.
???
How does that make sense?
It makes perfect sense. If he can survive on that farm for his whole life and all others can do that too, why should they have a government then? What should it do?
-
If other countries have governments then that farmer will need one too. In case of invasion from one of those countries. One farmer can't defeat a well organised and well trained army.
-
If other countries have governments then that farmer will need one too. In case of invasion from one of those countries. One farmer can't defeat a well organised and well trained army.
A better solution would be to abandon governments all over the Earth :thumbup:
-
One independent farmer might not need a government for HIMSELF
Society needs government thouhg
Why? If you don't need a government as an individual you don't need a government as a collective either.
???
How does that make sense?
It makes perfect sense. If he can survive on that farm for his whole life and all others can do that too, why should they have a government then? What should it do?
The world does not work like that. Get real
-
One independent farmer might not need a government for HIMSELF
Society needs government thouhg
Why? If you don't need a government as an individual you don't need a government as a collective either.
???
How does that make sense?
It makes perfect sense. If he can survive on that farm for his whole life and all others can do that too, why should they have a government then? What should it do?
The world does not work like that. Get real
And why doesn't it work like that? You are totally brainwashed by the state. What problems could the farmer have that he couldn't peacefully solve with his neighbours?
Bodie actually has more of a point than she might realize. She says that the government must protect the farmer from the military of other governments. But this shows how twisted it is. If no governments existed, no one needed to be protected from them.
-
so before big bad government came along, everything was peaceful and perfect?
I am not brainwashed by the state. I'm being fucking realistic. Just becuase someone disagrees with you dosen't mean they're brainwashed or stupid.
-
so before big bad government came along, everything was peaceful and perfect?
No, but the state didn't do anything better. What did the first states do better for its subjects? Nil!
I am not brainwashed by the state. I'm being fucking realistic. Just becuase someone disagrees with you dosen't mean they're brainwashed or stupid.
Stultus es, Adame! Cerebrum parvum habes! :hahaha:
-
so before big bad government came along, everything was peaceful and perfect?
I am not brainwashed by the state. I'm being fucking realistic. Just becuase someone disagrees with you dosen't mean they're brainwashed or stupid.
Here is an article I posted on the green party forum.
https://www.commondreams.org/headline/2013/07/19-2 (https://www.commondreams.org/headline/2013/07/19-2)
Full article below
Humans Not Predisposed to War, New Study Finds
Researchers show war is more recent of an invention than previously thought
- Jacob Chamberlain, staff writer
(https://www.commondreams.org/sites/commondreams.org/files/imce-images/1838470_373877ad98.jpg)
(Photo via Flickr / jf1234 / Creative Commons License)Countering the prevailing notion that humankind is naturally predisposed to war, new research suggests that primitive humans existed mostly peacefully, with war developing much later than previously thought.
The study's author, Patrik Soderberg, who worked with a team from Abo Academy University in Finland and published their research in the journal Science, said their research questioned "the idea that human nature, by default, is developed in the presence of making war and that war is a driving force in human evolution."
The findings, Soderberg said, challenge "the idea that war was ever-present in our ancestral past."
The study, "paints another picture where the quarrels and aggression were primarily about interpersonal motives instead of groups fighting against each other," said Soderberg.
The research pulls from observations of modern day people and tribes who are still isolated from contemporary society—living like hunter-gatherers did thousands of years ago—as the best living examples of how humans interacted in primitive times.
"About 12,000 years ago, we assume all humans were living in this kind of society, and that these kind of societies made up about for about 90% of our evolutionary path," Soderberg said.
The study found that of all the recorded deaths in these groups, most were considered individual "homicides," while only a few were caused by ongoing feuds. And, as Soderberg writes, "only the minority could be labeled as war."
"Over half the events were perpetrated by lone individuals and in 85% of the cases, the victims were members of the same society."
The researchers said that studying today's hunter-gatherer communities was not a perfect method for understanding ancient societies, "but said the similarities were significant and did provide an insight into our past," BBC News adds.
“It has been tempting to use these mobile foraging societies as rough analogies of the past and to ask how old warfare is and whether it is part of human nature. Our study shows that war is obviously not very common,” said study co-author Douglas Fry.
_____________________
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License
You should also look up the Zimbardo and Milgram experiments. Essential knowledge for anyone struggling with the issue of authority.
-
:thumbup: :plus:
-
You have parliamentary supremacy, correct? In the UK, Parliament can make any law it wants to. In the US, Congress can't legally enact certain laws. For example, Congress can't pass a law that declares someone guilty of a particular crime.
One of the biggest differences is the basis for the legitimacy of the government. In the UK, power is theoretically drawn from the monarch. In the US, the government's power is willingly surrendered by the general populace in order to promote the common good. We fought, as one nation, for our independence. I don't like big government because, under the American system, the people don't surrender any more power than the government needs to perform its basic functions. We have the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to enforce this.
I don't understand what would happen if your government started passing laws that a vast majority of Brits didn't like. What could you do about it? The Constitution is a way for the government to check its own power, and for the people to check the government.
There is plenty we can do about it. Protest for a start.
We have a scum-of-the-earth govt in power atm, but they will be voted out at the next election becuase people don't like what they're proposing. You get what you vote for.
Laws go thru several readings and thru both houses before they are passed. People can lobby their MPs to vote a certain way in particularly important issues
But, other than the monarchy, there's no other part of the government that can tell Parliament what it can or can't do, correct?
-
so before big bad government came along, everything was peaceful and perfect?
No, but the state didn't do anything better. What did the first states do better for its subjects? Nil!
I am not brainwashed by the state. I'm being fucking realistic. Just becuase someone disagrees with you dosen't mean they're brainwashed or stupid.
Stultus es, Adame! Cerebrum parvum habes! :hahaha:
What have the Romans ever done for us? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9foi342LXQE#ws)
-
I wouldn't like to live in the Roman society if not being a wealthy dominus though.
-
:thumbup: :plus:
thank you (http://e.deviantart.net/emoticons/b/bow.gif)
-
You should also look up the Zimbardo and Milgram experiments. Essential knowledge for anyone struggling with the issue of authority.
I know about the Zimbardo and Milgram experiments. I have read Zimbardo's book
-
But, other than the monarchy, there's no other part of the government that can tell Parliament what it can or can't do, correct?
Correct. the monarchy couldn't either really. Technically it can, but that doesn't happen anymore.
Of coiurse, that doesnt mean we shouldn't get rid of it. We shouldn't
And there are a lot of things I would change about our govt if I could
It's different here though. Our legal system and govt has evolved over many hundreds of years. If we were to start from scratch now, of course I'd say it should be different.
-
How is it a natural right? I don't understand that.
To me, natural rights are things like the right to life, freedom of thought, freedom of speech etc
Where does a gun come in to that?
ALso Lit, I find it amusing how your automatic response to someone disagreeing with you is always, "he doesn't understand this, he doesn't understand that, he doesn't understand tha concept of x, y or z"
No. We disagree with you. That does not make us stupid.
Because we wouldn't have those things without guns here, man. I don't think you quite appreciate how shitty its starting to get over here.
-
I got curious about this of course, since the guy for some reason seemed to have no motive at all. After some digging, I still don't know shit about him. I'm left with even more questions about this.
Why did he kill a dozen people?
How did he get onto a military post with a large shotgun and thirty shells?
What about that guy they said may have been helping him? That just kind of disappeared didn't it?
What the fuck was with the order to stand down?
What is his background? What kind of a guy was he? Did he have a father and mother? History of mental illness?
WHY AND HOW? I WANT TO KNOW AND THE PISS STREAM MEDIA IS NOT PROVIDING ANSWERS LIKE THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO!
I understand his motivation was intrinsic. As opposed to the mass shootings in Kenya which was motivated extrinsically.
I believe he had a military naval career which was cut short due to some disciplinary action. That is one bone of contention. I believe he was working within the naval base for a temp agency doing some menial task. Adding insult to injury. It has also been reported that he was present during 9/11 and helped with the rescue of injured victims. Possible PTSD ?
I can see how he might feel badly treated by the military and working in that environment doing a civilian job would only amplify these feelings. If he had no one to talk to about this then those feelings would build up and occupy more and more of his conscious mind. Anger, rage, disgruntled, feeling of being 'wronged', jealousy of military personnel, If it is true about 9/11 and possibly PTSD as an added ingredient then I guess he was a ticking time bomb.
Looking at trying to prevent future instances I would suggest ex military, particularly those who's career has been blocked due to misconduct or resulting in disciplinary action, are offered some support. Possibly even deterring them from taking civilian jobs within a military environment.
Incidentally I feel all ex military do not get nearly enough help. Not really talking about that man now, but just 'in general'. I know in the UK there are many on the streets, whose marriage has failed, who struggled to get a job simply because they struggled to cope on civvy street. Struggled without the routine and structure offered by, the army, for example.
I don't think the general public appreciate what soldiers do. The things they endure and the price they pay, sometimes the ultimate price. At the end of their career they are just tossed aside. Adjusting is not always easy. They deserve better.
Agreed. To be honest i'm still not really a "civilian", myself and I didn't even go overseas. They do indeed throw us in the trash when they're done with us. Luckily i'm too stubborn to be one of the ones that gives up though. I've managed to do alright.
-
You have parliamentary supremacy, correct? In the UK, Parliament can make any law it wants to. In the US, Congress can't legally enact certain laws. For example, Congress can't pass a law that declares someone guilty of a particular crime.
One of the biggest differences is the basis for the legitimacy of the government. In the UK, power is theoretically drawn from the monarch. In the US, the government's power is willingly surrendered by the general populace in order to promote the common good. We fought, as one nation, for our independence. I don't like big government because, under the American system, the people don't surrender any more power than the government needs to perform its basic functions. We have the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to enforce this.
I don't understand what would happen if your government started passing laws that a vast majority of Brits didn't like. What could you do about it? The Constitution is a way for the government to check its own power, and for the people to check the government.
There is plenty we can do about it. Protest for a start.
We have a scum-of-the-earth govt in power atm, but they will be voted out at the next election becuase people don't like what they're proposing. You get what you vote for.
Laws go thru several readings and thru both houses before they are passed. People can lobby their MPs to vote a certain way in particularly important issues
We have the shittiest government in the world in power right now. The American government rubs feces on the entire globe. Thing is, we're not going to be able to change things by voting over here. The system has become so rotten that it cannot be salvaged in my opinion. I blame the American people for letting things get this bad, sadly. If my parents and grandparent's generation had been paying attention, things could have been different.
-
How is it a natural right? I don't understand that.
To me, natural rights are things like the right to life, freedom of thought, freedom of speech etc
Where does a gun come in to that?
ALso Lit, I find it amusing how your automatic response to someone disagreeing with you is always, "he doesn't understand this, he doesn't understand that, he doesn't understand tha concept of x, y or z"
No. We disagree with you. That does not make us stupid.
Because we wouldn't have those things without guns here, man. I don't think you quite appreciate how shitty its starting to get over here.
They have guns in Syria, but they still don't have those things. :troll:
-
How is it a natural right? I don't understand that.
To me, natural rights are things like the right to life, freedom of thought, freedom of speech etc
Where does a gun come in to that?
ALso Lit, I find it amusing how your automatic response to someone disagreeing with you is always, "he doesn't understand this, he doesn't understand that, he doesn't understand tha concept of x, y or z"
No. We disagree with you. That does not make us stupid.
Because we wouldn't have those things without guns here, man. I don't think you quite appreciate how shitty its starting to get over here.
They have guns in Syria, but they still don't have those things. :troll:
Yeah we used guns to get rid of shit similar to what they're dealing with a long time ago. I wish I could go back in time and tell those guys: "Hey. This stuff is going to grow back."
-
How is it a natural right? I don't understand that.
To me, natural rights are things like the right to life, freedom of thought, freedom of speech etc
Where does a gun come in to that?
ALso Lit, I find it amusing how your automatic response to someone disagreeing with you is always, "he doesn't understand this, he doesn't understand that, he doesn't understand tha concept of x, y or z"
No. We disagree with you. That does not make us stupid.
Because we wouldn't have those things without guns here, man. I don't think you quite appreciate how shitty its starting to get over here.
They have guns in Syria, but they still don't have those things. :troll:
So we should invade and bring democracy? :trollface:
It's : trollface : here. : troll: is ASDC. :P
-
We have the shittiest government in the world in power right now.
I dunno, man, I'm glad I don't live in Saudi Arabia or Pakistan.
-
But OK, I'll consider the utilitarist argument for a short moment. How many people in Syria are being raped, molested and murdered now because they don't have the weapons to defend themselves? How many Jews died because they didn't have the weapons to defend themselves against the nazis? How many citizens of the Soviet Union, who couldn't defend themselves against Stalins thugs? Quite a few more than 11000 out of 317000000.
I didn't know there was a war going on in the US.
There wasn't a war going on in the Soviet Union most of the time Stalin were murdering 10-15% of the population or so either. And Jews were taken to camps in Germany already in 1933 although not extermination camps. You can't give any guarantees what the future will look like.
Yes. The pre-war Germany and Stalin's Soviet Union are relevant in this context. I stand corrected. :P
Guantanamo is real. The NSA shit is real. "War against terror" is real. You have no idea how this might escalate in 10-20 years.
In 1985, could you have foreseen what the world would look like today?
I distinctly remember a teacher of mine who in the early 80s told us that the Soviet Union would fall, detailed how it would happen, and went on to describe the US economical problems.
In short, yes.
-
He doesn't understand the concept of natural rights. Most Europeans are still stuck in the thinking when kings and emperors ruled and rights were something that the state gave you.
Implying that I'm stuck in that way of thinking? What are you basing that supposition on?
-
The US constitution is a touchy subject for you. I can't help noticing that it is when criticising it that you get mad and start with the name calling. Like here.
I think it's safe to say that it is sacred to a lot of people in the US. It is a weakness you have, IMO, because it can effectively keep you from evolving.
But I don't want to see the US crumble. It is a nation with problems but it is also a great nation, one that contributes so much more to the world than the nonsense that is usually on the news. Please don't think I dislike your country or your people just because I criticise your constitution.
Ok. I think we've reached the root of our disagreement. I see things pretty much the opposite of what you do. The U.S. constitution is actually one of the last American things in my country, and its beginning to die. My government has begun to completely ignore it and operate almost completely separate of the people which was not how this nation was designed to run.
I agree with Semicolon. If we're going to change the constitution, we need to make it much stronger.
On this [the text in bold] we actually agree. However flawed your constitution is, however desperately it needs a review, if the legislation that is in place is not followed by those who are supposed to guard it, you have a huge problem.
Not one that can be solved with guns, I think, but one that needs to be addressed somehow.
-
If you are satisfied that you have a voice in your government, then don't feel that you need to impose American values on yourself. I would not want to live under a system where one branch of the government can do whatever it wants, given a majority, and I wouldn't want my taxes to support even a symbolic monarchy. To me, the basic principles that underlie the US are too antithetical to a monarchy or a state church to support either one. All people can't be created equal if some of them get special rights by virtue of nobility.
Sadly, people are not treated as equals in your country either. The methods are different, that's all.
-
How is it a natural right? I don't understand that.
To me, natural rights are things like the right to life, freedom of thought, freedom of speech etc
Where does a gun come in to that?
Everything that is not malum in se (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malum_in_se) is a natural right.
ALso Lit, I find it amusing how your automatic response to someone disagreeing with you is always, "he doesn't understand this, he doesn't understand that, he doesn't understand tha concept of x, y or z"
No. We disagree with you. That does not make us stupid.
You are definitely less intelligent than I am. In odeon's case it's about that double bind. He knows that I'm right when I'm saying that the state might murder us one day, but that is a fact so intolerable that he chooses to pretend that it couldn't happen and instead talks into himself that the state is protecting us.
"he knows that I'm right..."?
"talks into himself that the state is protecting us..."
Why do you insist putting words in our mouths and telling us what we think and why, when you have no clue?
We could talk about intelligence in considerable detail and you might find yourself losing that discussion, but that topic is pretty much completely unrelated to the subject at hand.
It's very difficult to have a discussion, let alone a debate, with someone who keeps trying to put words in one's mouth. We don't pretend to know why you hold your views. I'd appreciate if you showed us that same courtesy.
-
lol I am definitely less intelligent than u?
I love how you know that over the internet.
You are less intelligent, since it's obvious that you have a limited understanding of some things.
In odeon's case it is that he simply rejects facts that are too unpleasant. In your case it's a lack of understanding what it's all about in the first place.
How does a disagreement equal "limited understanding"?
-
No one ever chose to have a government in the first place, not anymore than anyone ever chose to get raped.
Most sensible people wouldn't agree with you though. Most people accept that, while not perfect, govt is necessary
For what?
Let's go back to 1750. You are an independent farmer. What the hell do you need a government for? They only steal the fruits of your labour and send you to die for them in wars.
You go back to 1750. See if the state is willing to pay your bills. Me, I'm staying in 2013.
-
Yeah I seen a few speeches from the conference. Milliband's was excellent. He spoke for over an hour with no notes or prompts.
Before the conference I would have said the next election would be a battle of centre politics.
I now think it will be left v right. I don't think Labour have shifted too far to the left. Just enough. Of course, any lean to the left, no matter how slight has the advantage of making the Tory party appear more right :zoinks:
(probably not making sense to most of you but hopefully Adam will 'get' my meaning.)
Would you happen to have a link to Milliband's talk?
-
What problems could the farmer have that he couldn't peacefully solve with his neighbours?
You are joking, right?
Have you any insight at all into the human condition?
-
so before big bad government came along, everything was peaceful and perfect?
I am not brainwashed by the state. I'm being fucking realistic. Just becuase someone disagrees with you dosen't mean they're brainwashed or stupid.
Here is an article I posted on the green party forum.
https://www.commondreams.org/headline/2013/07/19-2 (https://www.commondreams.org/headline/2013/07/19-2)
Full article below
Humans Not Predisposed to War, New Study Finds
Researchers show war is more recent of an invention than previously thought
- Jacob Chamberlain, staff writer
(https://www.commondreams.org/sites/commondreams.org/files/imce-images/1838470_373877ad98.jpg)
(Photo via Flickr / jf1234 / Creative Commons License)Countering the prevailing notion that humankind is naturally predisposed to war, new research suggests that primitive humans existed mostly peacefully, with war developing much later than previously thought.
The study's author, Patrik Soderberg, who worked with a team from Abo Academy University in Finland and published their research in the journal Science, said their research questioned "the idea that human nature, by default, is developed in the presence of making war and that war is a driving force in human evolution."
The findings, Soderberg said, challenge "the idea that war was ever-present in our ancestral past."
The study, "paints another picture where the quarrels and aggression were primarily about interpersonal motives instead of groups fighting against each other," said Soderberg.
The research pulls from observations of modern day people and tribes who are still isolated from contemporary society—living like hunter-gatherers did thousands of years ago—as the best living examples of how humans interacted in primitive times.
"About 12,000 years ago, we assume all humans were living in this kind of society, and that these kind of societies made up about for about 90% of our evolutionary path," Soderberg said.
The study found that of all the recorded deaths in these groups, most were considered individual "homicides," while only a few were caused by ongoing feuds. And, as Soderberg writes, "only the minority could be labeled as war."
"Over half the events were perpetrated by lone individuals and in 85% of the cases, the victims were members of the same society."
The researchers said that studying today's hunter-gatherer communities was not a perfect method for understanding ancient societies, "but said the similarities were significant and did provide an insight into our past," BBC News adds.
“It has been tempting to use these mobile foraging societies as rough analogies of the past and to ask how old warfare is and whether it is part of human nature. Our study shows that war is obviously not very common,” said study co-author Douglas Fry.
_____________________
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License
You should also look up the Zimbardo and Milgram experiments. Essential knowledge for anyone struggling with the issue of authority.
I need to read up on this.
I did notice an interesting passage, above (highlighted). My question is: would the end result be different? I do think that basic aggressions are about personal (and thus interpersonal) motives, but I also think that whenever humans live in groups, these basic motives will affect the group, effectively creating a predisposition for war for the group.
I get the feel that the difference between the end results of each (a predisposition for war vs interpersonal motives) ends up being a matter of definition. I honestly don't think humans just get along if their wills collide with each other.
Very interesting, in any case. +
-
You should also look up the Zimbardo and Milgram experiments. Essential knowledge for anyone struggling with the issue of authority.
I know about the Zimbardo and Milgram experiments. I have read Zimbardo's book
Sorry but you have a limited understanding. Because Lit says so. :tard:
-
Yeah I seen a few speeches from the conference. Milliband's was excellent. He spoke for over an hour with no notes or prompts.
Before the conference I would have said the next election would be a battle of centre politics.
I now think it will be left v right. I don't think Labour have shifted too far to the left. Just enough. Of course, any lean to the left, no matter how slight has the advantage of making the Tory party appear more right :zoinks:
(probably not making sense to most of you but hopefully Adam will 'get' my meaning.)
Would you happen to have a link to Milliband's talk?
Ed Miliband Conference 2013 speech (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nCqrFmNBPQk#)
It is very long, but even his enemies have credited him. It is a cracking speech.
-
Thanks. Will watch, tonight.
-
But OK, I'll consider the utilitarist argument for a short moment. How many people in Syria are being raped, molested and murdered now because they don't have the weapons to defend themselves? How many Jews died because they didn't have the weapons to defend themselves against the nazis? How many citizens of the Soviet Union, who couldn't defend themselves against Stalins thugs? Quite a few more than 11000 out of 317000000.
I didn't know there was a war going on in the US.
There wasn't a war going on in the Soviet Union most of the time Stalin were murdering 10-15% of the population or so either. And Jews were taken to camps in Germany already in 1933 although not extermination camps. You can't give any guarantees what the future will look like.
Yes. The pre-war Germany and Stalin's Soviet Union are relevant in this context. I stand corrected. :P
Guantanamo is real. The NSA shit is real. "War against terror" is real. You have no idea how this might escalate in 10-20 years.
In 1985, could you have foreseen what the world would look like today?
I distinctly remember a teacher of mine who in the early 80s told us that the Soviet Union would fall, detailed how it would happen, and went on to describe the US economical problems.
In short, yes.
And every other thing that would exist in 2013, like the internet, mobile phones, "war on terror" etc? ::)
-
He doesn't understand the concept of natural rights. Most Europeans are still stuck in the thinking when kings and emperors ruled and rights were something that the state gave you.
Implying that I'm stuck in that way of thinking? What are you basing that supposition on?
You are stuck either in that kind of thinking or some other kind of thinking.
Even if the state could be trusted to 100% the gun law and law about self-defence here would still make you helpless against a stalker who wanted to hurt you, for instance. You would have to either accept that the stalker would hurt you or break the law and risk prison to defend yourself. It's impossible that you find this morally right. The dad in Rödeby had an enormous luck. If people hadn't for once been so outraged he would probably have ended up in prison.
-
How is it a natural right? I don't understand that.
To me, natural rights are things like the right to life, freedom of thought, freedom of speech etc
Where does a gun come in to that?
Everything that is not malum in se (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malum_in_se) is a natural right.
ALso Lit, I find it amusing how your automatic response to someone disagreeing with you is always, "he doesn't understand this, he doesn't understand that, he doesn't understand tha concept of x, y or z"
No. We disagree with you. That does not make us stupid.
You are definitely less intelligent than I am. In odeon's case it's about that double bind. He knows that I'm right when I'm saying that the state might murder us one day, but that is a fact so intolerable that he chooses to pretend that it couldn't happen and instead talks into himself that the state is protecting us.
"he knows that I'm right..."?
"talks into himself that the state is protecting us..."
Why do you insist putting words in our mouths and telling us what we think and why, when you have no clue?
We could talk about intelligence in considerable detail and you might find yourself losing that discussion, but that topic is pretty much completely unrelated to the subject at hand.
It's very difficult to have a discussion, let alone a debate, with someone who keeps trying to put words in one's mouth. We don't pretend to know why you hold your views. I'd appreciate if you showed us that same courtesy.
Why would I lose a discussion about intelligence? You are not winning this one. You are as usual avoiding the subject and turning to ad hominem and statistics that just show that more people are killed in America but avoiding to see this from the greater perspective.
Can you give an absolute guarantee that Sweden, the UK or the US will never end up like Bosnia or Syria? No you can't. So comparing gun deaths in the US vs. Japan in peacetime isn't an honest way to argue.
(He will respond to this with something like :LMAO: )
-
lol I am definitely less intelligent than u?
I love how you know that over the internet.
You are less intelligent, since it's obvious that you have a limited understanding of some things.
In odeon's case it is that he simply rejects facts that are too unpleasant. In your case it's a lack of understanding what it's all about in the first place.
How does a disagreement equal "limited understanding"?
It's just not that he disagrees. It is obvious that he often can't grasp the whole picture in a debate. In your case it's obvious that you can but that you avoid certain questions, drag up my disability etc instead of discussing the whole picture in an honest way.
-
What problems could the farmer have that he couldn't peacefully solve with his neighbours?
You are joking, right?
Have you any insight at all into the human condition?
You mean instead of getting along peacefully with my neighbours face to face we need to be oppressed by both morally and judicially criminal psychopaths who force us to get along peacefully?
These people are the ones causing Syrians being raped and tortured to death. These are the ones using the NSA spying on both individuals, corporations, nation states and international organisations. So we need those murdererers, torturers, war mongers and traitors to protect us from our fellow man? Brilliant.
For of course it couldn't be just these psychopaths creating most evil on Earth for their own benefit and power.
This phenomenon is common by people rejecting anarchism: "In an anarchy, who would protect you from all the wrongs that the state is doing to you?" Because that's in principle what you are saying.
We can take the shootings in Göteborg as an example, since we are already talking about guns. They are about drugs. Different gangs are shooting at each other. But if the drugs were sold in the pharmacy without a prescription, they would be easy to get and cost very little and the problem wouldn't exist. About the same people would be taking drugs as today, but no criminals would benefit from it. But that wouldn't be good for the state, because the faked war on drugs is one of those things that the state uses to justify its existence.
And this is also a topic where the state has brainwashed the citizens. Most people in Sweden believe that if drugs were free there would be full of drugged people in the streets, a lot more violence etc. But the violence that is now is because the drugs are illegal, not because they are easy to get. The state uses this twisted logic in all areas that it demands control of: drugs cause criminality because they are illegal. The state turns this upside down and says that it's just thanks to the state's criminalizing that it isn't worse. Just like with guns: gun laws are there so that it should be more easy to massacre the people. The state turns it to the perverted lie that they are there to protect the people :facepalm2:
-
No one ever chose to have a government in the first place, not anymore than anyone ever chose to get raped.
Most sensible people wouldn't agree with you though. Most people accept that, while not perfect, govt is necessary
For what?
Let's go back to 1750. You are an independent farmer. What the hell do you need a government for? They only steal the fruits of your labour and send you to die for them in wars.
You go back to 1750. See if the state is willing to pay your bills. Me, I'm staying in 2013.
This was a simple example of why no one needs the state if they have something they can live on without support from the outside. Of course you couldn't be honest enough not to twist my words and use ad hominem.
Or we could invent the term argumentum ad pensionem: if you don't have an income from work you are disqualified from discussing abolishing the state ::)
-
If you are satisfied that you have a voice in your government, then don't feel that you need to impose American values on yourself. I would not want to live under a system where one branch of the government can do whatever it wants, given a majority, and I wouldn't want my taxes to support even a symbolic monarchy. To me, the basic principles that underlie the US are too antithetical to a monarchy or a state church to support either one. All people can't be created equal if some of them get special rights by virtue of nobility.
Sadly, people are not treated as equals in your country either. The methods are different, that's all.
True, but that's not all. All people are theoretically created equal in America. All people are not created equal in the UK. It sometimes doesn't work, but in my opinion, the US system in this area is better than the British system.
-
If you are satisfied that you have a voice in your government, then don't feel that you need to impose American values on yourself. I would not want to live under a system where one branch of the government can do whatever it wants, given a majority, and I wouldn't want my taxes to support even a symbolic monarchy. To me, the basic principles that underlie the US are too antithetical to a monarchy or a state church to support either one. All people can't be created equal if some of them get special rights by virtue of nobility.
Sadly, people are not treated as equals in your country either. The methods are different, that's all.
True, but that's not all. All people are theoretically created equal in America. All people are not created equal in the UK. It sometimes doesn't work, but in my opinion, the US system in this area is better than the British system.
Billionaires in America are in reality above the law almost as sure as royals and aristocrats in some European countries, but I agree that the principles in America are better. Too bad it is often just theory.
-
You should also look up the Zimbardo and Milgram experiments. Essential knowledge for anyone struggling with the issue of authority.
I know about the Zimbardo and Milgram experiments. I have read Zimbardo's book
Sorry but you have a limited understanding. Because Lit says so. :tard:
Adam is a typical city person. He believes in "parliamentary democracy" for real. I know farmers who on paper are less intelligent than he is but realistic enough to understand the fraud with "parliamentary democracy".
-
The US constitution is a touchy subject for you. I can't help noticing that it is when criticising it that you get mad and start with the name calling. Like here.
I think it's safe to say that it is sacred to a lot of people in the US. It is a weakness you have, IMO, because it can effectively keep you from evolving.
But I don't want to see the US crumble. It is a nation with problems but it is also a great nation, one that contributes so much more to the world than the nonsense that is usually on the news. Please don't think I dislike your country or your people just because I criticise your constitution.
Ok. I think we've reached the root of our disagreement. I see things pretty much the opposite of what you do. The U.S. constitution is actually one of the last American things in my country, and its beginning to die. My government has begun to completely ignore it and operate almost completely separate of the people which was not how this nation was designed to run.
I agree with Semicolon. If we're going to change the constitution, we need to make it much stronger.
On this [the text in bold] we actually agree. However flawed your constitution is, however desperately it needs a review, if the legislation that is in place is not followed by those who are supposed to guard it, you have a huge problem.
Not one that can be solved with guns, I think, but one that needs to be addressed somehow.
Glad we agree on something. Its a serious problem.
-
lol I am definitely less intelligent than u?
I love how you know that over the internet.
You are less intelligent, since it's obvious that you have a limited understanding of some things.
In odeon's case it is that he simply rejects facts that are too unpleasant. In your case it's a lack of understanding what it's all about in the first place.
How does a disagreement equal "limited understanding"?
Because obviously if you disagree with Lit, it's because you just don't understand it enough. I'm just not as intelligent as he is :tard:
-
Yeah I seen a few speeches from the conference. Milliband's was excellent. He spoke for over an hour with no notes or prompts.
Before the conference I would have said the next election would be a battle of centre politics.
I now think it will be left v right. I don't think Labour have shifted too far to the left. Just enough. Of course, any lean to the left, no matter how slight has the advantage of making the Tory party appear more right :zoinks:
(probably not making sense to most of you but hopefully Adam will 'get' my meaning.)
Would you happen to have a link to Milliband's talk?
Not a video, but here's a link to the transcript
http://labourlist.org/2013/09/transcript-ed-milibands-2013-conference-speech/ (http://labourlist.org/2013/09/transcript-ed-milibands-2013-conference-speech/)
-
You are a city person, not a sound and healthy country person. :arrr:
-
It's just not that he disagrees. It is obvious that he often can't grasp the whole picture in a debate. In your case it's obvious that you can but that you avoid certain questions, drag up my disability etc instead of discussing the whole picture in an honest way.
It's obvious, is it? In what way?
in all honesty, I wasn't really viewing this as much of a "debate"
maybe if it had started out as a callout and I was paying attention right from the start...
I've mostly been following this on my phone just before work or before I go to bed. I skim through a lot of it. I#m sure I *have" misunderstood a few things you've said, but not becuase I;m thick - I'm skimming thru a thread on a fucking internet forum... not debating at a university. :2thumbsup:
I'm pretty sure I have at least as good a grasp of history, politics, psychology etc as you do.
In fact, judging by some of your remarks about farmers etc, I'd say I have a much better grasp of it
-
As I said: you are less intelligent than I am and you live in a city, out of touch with reality. Sound persons live in the countryside.
You are like those idiots in Stockholm. They know nothing about the real world, since they live totally unnatural city lives.
-
LOL, so the only "real world" is the world of a country farmer?
If anyone else was making this arguments, I'd assume they were taking the piss
-
LOL, so the only "real world" is the world of a country farmer?
If anyone else was making this arguments, I'd assume they were taking the piss
I'm pretty sure that you wouldn't even be able to sleep one night out in the real countryside. It's totally dark and quiet. You would probably feel anxious without noises and city lights.
-
Um, what the hell does that have to do with anything?
-
Um, what the hell does that have to do with anything?
That shows how unnatural city people live. In my humble opinion that's one of the reasons why people like you have the views you have on things. It's much more common that farmers think owning guns is a right than city people, because city people are out of touch with reality.
-
your humble opinion... lol
because guns are perfectly natural
-
your humble opinion... lol
because guns are perfectly natural
Owning them is a natural right.
-
your humble opinion... lol
because guns are perfectly natural
As natural as any tool.
-
your humble opinion... lol
because guns are perfectly natural
How will removing guns from law abiding citizens prevent criminals from obtaining guns illegally?
-
I don't think that Adam understands the concept "black market".
-
By the way: control of who was carrying weapons existed already thousand years before firearms existed. This proves that control over weapons has nothing to do with protecting the general public from individuals running amok but is an instrument of power.
-
I'm still waiting. What need of a government does an independent farmer have?
because, eventually the banks own everything.
-
In an anarchy there wouldn't be a capitalist bank system of the kind we have today: Mutualism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutualism_%28economic_theory%29)
-
But OK, I'll consider the utilitarist argument for a short moment. How many people in Syria are being raped, molested and murdered now because they don't have the weapons to defend themselves? How many Jews died because they didn't have the weapons to defend themselves against the nazis? How many citizens of the Soviet Union, who couldn't defend themselves against Stalins thugs? Quite a few more than 11000 out of 317000000.
I didn't know there was a war going on in the US.
There wasn't a war going on in the Soviet Union most of the time Stalin were murdering 10-15% of the population or so either. And Jews were taken to camps in Germany already in 1933 although not extermination camps. You can't give any guarantees what the future will look like.
Yes. The pre-war Germany and Stalin's Soviet Union are relevant in this context. I stand corrected. :P
Guantanamo is real. The NSA shit is real. "War against terror" is real. You have no idea how this might escalate in 10-20 years.
In 1985, could you have foreseen what the world would look like today?
I distinctly remember a teacher of mine who in the early 80s told us that the Soviet Union would fall, detailed how it would happen, and went on to describe the US economical problems.
In short, yes.
And every other thing that would exist in 2013, like the internet, mobile phones, "war on terror" etc? ::)
No, just the above. Mobile phones were becoming a reality, though, and several unis could access the Usenet. The war on terror was not discussed.
Why? You don't believe I had such a teacher?
At the time, most of us thought she was talking nonsense. There was no way the Soviet Union would collapse, we thought. And most of us considered the US to be even more stable.
If you think about it, though, the signs were all there in plain view.
-
You are stuck either in that kind of thinking or some other kind of thinking.
Or you are, and can't get past it even though most of us see that you are, at best, entertaining a private pipe dream.
-
But OK, I'll consider the utilitarist argument for a short moment. How many people in Syria are being raped, molested and murdered now because they don't have the weapons to defend themselves? How many Jews died because they didn't have the weapons to defend themselves against the nazis? How many citizens of the Soviet Union, who couldn't defend themselves against Stalins thugs? Quite a few more than 11000 out of 317000000.
I didn't know there was a war going on in the US.
There wasn't a war going on in the Soviet Union most of the time Stalin were murdering 10-15% of the population or so either. And Jews were taken to camps in Germany already in 1933 although not extermination camps. You can't give any guarantees what the future will look like.
Yes. The pre-war Germany and Stalin's Soviet Union are relevant in this context. I stand corrected. :P
Guantanamo is real. The NSA shit is real. "War against terror" is real. You have no idea how this might escalate in 10-20 years.
In 1985, could you have foreseen what the world would look like today?
I distinctly remember a teacher of mine who in the early 80s told us that the Soviet Union would fall, detailed how it would happen, and went on to describe the US economical problems.
In short, yes.
And every other thing that would exist in 2013, like the internet, mobile phones, "war on terror" etc? ::)
No, just the above. Mobile phones were becoming a reality, though, and several unis could access the Usenet. The war on terror was not discussed.
Why? You don't believe I had such a teacher?
At the time, most of us thought she was talking nonsense. There was no way the Soviet Union would collapse, we thought. And most of us considered the US to be even more stable.
If you think about it, though, the signs were all there in plain view.
I believe that you had such a teacher. But you kind of miss the point. She didn't know that. It was a qualified guess, that happened to be correct. Most people in 1900 didn't think that the world in 1920 would look like it did. Most people in 1920 didn't have a clue what the world would look like in 1940. Etc.
-
You are stuck either in that kind of thinking or some other kind of thinking.
Or you are, and can't get past it even though most of us see that you are, at best, entertaining a private pipe dream.
You know that the gun law is there to preserve status quo, not to protect the citizens. Before Sweden had a gun law, Swedish cops usually didn't carry guns. On the very same date that it became mandatory with gun licenses, the 1st of January 1927, it also became mandatory for Swedish cops to always carry guns.
-
How is it a natural right? I don't understand that.
To me, natural rights are things like the right to life, freedom of thought, freedom of speech etc
Where does a gun come in to that?
Everything that is not malum in se (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malum_in_se) is a natural right.
ALso Lit, I find it amusing how your automatic response to someone disagreeing with you is always, "he doesn't understand this, he doesn't understand that, he doesn't understand tha concept of x, y or z"
No. We disagree with you. That does not make us stupid.
You are definitely less intelligent than I am. In odeon's case it's about that double bind. He knows that I'm right when I'm saying that the state might murder us one day, but that is a fact so intolerable that he chooses to pretend that it couldn't happen and instead talks into himself that the state is protecting us.
"he knows that I'm right..."?
"talks into himself that the state is protecting us..."
Why do you insist putting words in our mouths and telling us what we think and why, when you have no clue?
We could talk about intelligence in considerable detail and you might find yourself losing that discussion, but that topic is pretty much completely unrelated to the subject at hand.
It's very difficult to have a discussion, let alone a debate, with someone who keeps trying to put words in one's mouth. We don't pretend to know why you hold your views. I'd appreciate if you showed us that same courtesy.
Why would I lose a discussion about intelligence?
Because I can say with reasonable confidence that my IQ is significantly higher than yours. Because you don't actually prove anything, you just postulate something that happens to fit your twisted argument and go from there. We mean this, Adam's intelligence is that, etc, etc, etc. Because, basically, you don't have a leg to stand on.
You are not winning this one. You are as usual avoiding the subject and turning to ad hominem and statistics that just show that more people are killed in America but avoiding to see this from the greater perspective.
Which is? I think I did compare 'merican numbers with Japanese ones.
I think I am winning this one. Or rather, you lot are losing it. Your lack of a coherent argument is enough. It's enough for me to pop in from time to time.
Can you give an absolute guarantee that Sweden, the UK or the US will never end up like Bosnia or Syria? No you can't. So comparing gun deaths in the US vs. Japan in peacetime isn't an honest way to argue.
No, I can't. Can you guarantee that they will? And why would that matter? Can you guarantee *anything* about the future?
Why isn't it an honest way to argue? I fail to see the logic. Neither the US or Japan is comparable with Bosnia/Syria.
But if you want we can include gun statistics from those two countries into the discussion. Should you dig up the numbers or should I?
(He will respond to this with something like :LMAO: )
No, but I can if you want me to.
:LMAO:
-
lol I am definitely less intelligent than u?
I love how you know that over the internet.
You are less intelligent, since it's obvious that you have a limited understanding of some things.
In odeon's case it is that he simply rejects facts that are too unpleasant. In your case it's a lack of understanding what it's all about in the first place.
How does a disagreement equal "limited understanding"?
It's just not that he disagrees. It is obvious that he often can't grasp the whole picture in a debate. In your case it's obvious that you can but that you avoid certain questions, drag up my disability etc instead of discussing the whole picture in an honest way.
Did it ever occur to you that he, in fact, does grasp the whole picture while you don't? Which is why he answers in a seemingly incomprehensible way.
Your disability is perfectly safe with me, btw. I fully support your right to it but not for the reasons you give. I simply think it is the decent thing to do.
-
Because I can say with reasonable confidence that my IQ is significantly higher than yours. Because you don't actually prove anything, you just postulate something that happens to fit your twisted argument and go from there. We mean this, Adam's intelligence is that, etc, etc, etc. Because, basically, you don't have a leg to stand on.
So much stranger that you don't have the confidence to argue in an honest way, then.
Which is? I think I did compare 'merican numbers with Japanese ones.
I think I am winning this one. Or rather, you lot are losing it. Your lack of a coherent argument is enough. It's enough for me to pop in from time to time.
The greater perspective is that without a gun, or even with a gun but with gun laws like the Swedish one it is both nearly impossible to legally defend yourself from a criminal and also to protect yourself from the state if necessary. Dictatorships disarm the people or at least the groups they want to oppress and murder. This goes for "democracies" as well.
No, I can't. Can you guarantee that they will? And why would that matter? Can you guarantee *anything* about the future?
Why isn't it an honest way to argue? I fail to see the logic. Neither the US or Japan is comparable with Bosnia/Syria.
But if you want we can include gun statistics from those two countries into the discussion. Should you dig up the numbers or should I?
Gun statisitics have nothing to do with it. The fact is that with gun control it's easier for the state to murder its citizens. You demand that other people not only risk to be defenceless against ordinary criminals but also risk to end up in a situation like in Bosnia and Syria.
No, but I can if you want me to.
:LMAO:
::)
-
What problems could the farmer have that he couldn't peacefully solve with his neighbours?
You are joking, right?
Have you any insight at all into the human condition?
You mean instead of getting along peacefully with my neighbours face to face we need to be oppressed by both morally and judicially criminal psychopaths who force us to get along peacefully?
These people are the ones causing Syrians being raped and tortured to death. These are the ones using the NSA spying on both individuals, corporations, nation states and international organisations. So we need those murdererers, torturers, war mongers and traitors to protect us from our fellow man? Brilliant.
For of course it couldn't be just these psychopaths creating most evil on Earth for their own benefit and power.
This phenomenon is common by people rejecting anarchism: "In an anarchy, who would protect you from all the wrongs that the state is doing to you?" Because that's in principle what you are saying.
We can take the shootings in Göteborg as an example, since we are already talking about guns. They are about drugs. Different gangs are shooting at each other. But if the drugs were sold in the pharmacy without a prescription, they would be easy to get and cost very little and the problem wouldn't exist. About the same people would be taking drugs as today, but no criminals would benefit from it. But that wouldn't be good for the state, because the faked war on drugs is one of those things that the state uses to justify its existence.
And this is also a topic where the state has brainwashed the citizens. Most people in Sweden believe that if drugs were free there would be full of drugged people in the streets, a lot more violence etc. But the violence that is now is because the drugs are illegal, not because they are easy to get. The state uses this twisted logic in all areas that it demands control of: drugs cause criminality because they are illegal. The state turns this upside down and says that it's just thanks to the state's criminalizing that it isn't worse. Just like with guns: gun laws are there so that it should be more easy to massacre the people. The state turns it to the perverted lie that they are there to protect the people :facepalm2:
You're missing my whole point. You are going off on a tangent, ignoring your previous comment and its implications, choosing instead to bring up another issue. I love it how you bring up wholly unrelated arguments, most of which are assumptions on your part, based on what you think rather than what people actually say.
Arguing against both the new and the old is an exercise in futility, especially since neither is related to the original topic.
-
No one ever chose to have a government in the first place, not anymore than anyone ever chose to get raped.
Most sensible people wouldn't agree with you though. Most people accept that, while not perfect, govt is necessary
For what?
Let's go back to 1750. You are an independent farmer. What the hell do you need a government for? They only steal the fruits of your labour and send you to die for them in wars.
You go back to 1750. See if the state is willing to pay your bills. Me, I'm staying in 2013.
This was a simple example of why no one needs the state if they have something they can live on without support from the outside. Of course you couldn't be honest enough not to twist my words and use ad hominem.
Or we could invent the term argumentum ad pensionem: if you don't have an income from work you are disqualified from discussing abolishing the state ::)
Why is it dishonest to point out that it's no longer 1750?
-
If you are satisfied that you have a voice in your government, then don't feel that you need to impose American values on yourself. I would not want to live under a system where one branch of the government can do whatever it wants, given a majority, and I wouldn't want my taxes to support even a symbolic monarchy. To me, the basic principles that underlie the US are too antithetical to a monarchy or a state church to support either one. All people can't be created equal if some of them get special rights by virtue of nobility.
Sadly, people are not treated as equals in your country either. The methods are different, that's all.
True, but that's not all. All people are theoretically created equal in America. All people are not created equal in the UK. It sometimes doesn't work, but in my opinion, the US system in this area is better than the British system.
Aren't you generally voting for people who will vote for you?
-
lol I am definitely less intelligent than u?
I love how you know that over the internet.
You are less intelligent, since it's obvious that you have a limited understanding of some things.
In odeon's case it is that he simply rejects facts that are too unpleasant. In your case it's a lack of understanding what it's all about in the first place.
How does a disagreement equal "limited understanding"?
It's just not that he disagrees. It is obvious that he often can't grasp the whole picture in a debate. In your case it's obvious that you can but that you avoid certain questions, drag up my disability etc instead of discussing the whole picture in an honest way.
Did it ever occur to you that he, in fact, does grasp the whole picture while you don't? Which is why he answers in a seemingly incomprehensible way.
Your disability is perfectly safe with me, btw. I fully support your right to it but not for the reasons you give. I simply think it is the decent thing to do.
Adam doesn't grasp the whole picture. I'm on disability now, but I have been out in the real world, so to speak, when I was younger. Adam lives in an illusion.
-
Um, what the hell does that have to do with anything?
That shows how unnatural city people live. In my humble opinion that's one of the reasons why people like you have the views you have on things. It's much more common that farmers think owning guns is a right than city people, because city people are out of touch with reality.
Nothing humble with it. This is just silly.
-
your humble opinion... lol
because guns are perfectly natural
How will removing guns from law abiding citizens prevent criminals from obtaining guns illegally?
Did you just wake up and miss the whole discussion?
-
No one ever chose to have a government in the first place, not anymore than anyone ever chose to get raped.
Most sensible people wouldn't agree with you though. Most people accept that, while not perfect, govt is necessary
For what?
Let's go back to 1750. You are an independent farmer. What the hell do you need a government for? They only steal the fruits of your labour and send you to die for them in wars.
You go back to 1750. See if the state is willing to pay your bills. Me, I'm staying in 2013.
This was a simple example of why no one needs the state if they have something they can live on without support from the outside. Of course you couldn't be honest enough not to twist my words and use ad hominem.
Or we could invent the term argumentum ad pensionem: if you don't have an income from work you are disqualified from discussing abolishing the state ::)
Why is it dishonest to point out that it's no longer 1750?
Because the principle behind the state is the same as in 1750: it is there for those in power. That there is health care, free education etc is not because the politicians are so warm-hearted but because it's easier to bribe the sheeple to obey than to force them. "Democracy" and "welfare state" is simply easier to run and more stable than an outright dictatorship.
-
But OK, I'll consider the utilitarist argument for a short moment. How many people in Syria are being raped, molested and murdered now because they don't have the weapons to defend themselves? How many Jews died because they didn't have the weapons to defend themselves against the nazis? How many citizens of the Soviet Union, who couldn't defend themselves against Stalins thugs? Quite a few more than 11000 out of 317000000.
I didn't know there was a war going on in the US.
There wasn't a war going on in the Soviet Union most of the time Stalin were murdering 10-15% of the population or so either. And Jews were taken to camps in Germany already in 1933 although not extermination camps. You can't give any guarantees what the future will look like.
Yes. The pre-war Germany and Stalin's Soviet Union are relevant in this context. I stand corrected. :P
Guantanamo is real. The NSA shit is real. "War against terror" is real. You have no idea how this might escalate in 10-20 years.
In 1985, could you have foreseen what the world would look like today?
I distinctly remember a teacher of mine who in the early 80s told us that the Soviet Union would fall, detailed how it would happen, and went on to describe the US economical problems.
In short, yes.
And every other thing that would exist in 2013, like the internet, mobile phones, "war on terror" etc? ::)
No, just the above. Mobile phones were becoming a reality, though, and several unis could access the Usenet. The war on terror was not discussed.
Why? You don't believe I had such a teacher?
At the time, most of us thought she was talking nonsense. There was no way the Soviet Union would collapse, we thought. And most of us considered the US to be even more stable.
If you think about it, though, the signs were all there in plain view.
I believe that you had such a teacher. But you kind of miss the point. She didn't know that. It was a qualified guess, that happened to be correct. Most people in 1900 didn't think that the world in 1920 would look like it did. Most people in 1920 didn't have a clue what the world would look like in 1940. Etc.
It was a qualified guess, yes, but not an accident. Not a fluke.
And most people now, as in 1920 or 1900, don't actually care, nor do they possess the mental faculties or the knowledge to make such a guess. What's your point? The rolling eyes in your previous post surely meant *something*.
-
You are stuck either in that kind of thinking or some other kind of thinking.
Or you are, and can't get past it even though most of us see that you are, at best, entertaining a private pipe dream.
You know that the gun law is there to preserve status quo, not to protect the citizens. Before Sweden had a gun law, Swedish cops usually didn't carry guns. On the very same date that it became mandatory with gun licenses, the 1st of January 1927, it also became mandatory for Swedish cops to always carry guns.
Actually that's somewhat dishonest. Not every Swedish cop carries a gun and not every Swedish cop is required to carry one. Which I assume you know.
-
It was a qualified guess, yes, but not an accident. Not a fluke.
And most people now, as in 1920 or 1900, don't actually care, nor do they possess the mental faculties or the knowledge to make such a guess. What's your point? The rolling eyes in your previous post surely meant *something*.
Since you can't predict the future you can't say for sure that something like in Bosnia or Syria will never happen. Yet you are arguing from the point of view that the future will be as stable as the present.
-
You are stuck either in that kind of thinking or some other kind of thinking.
Or you are, and can't get past it even though most of us see that you are, at best, entertaining a private pipe dream.
You know that the gun law is there to preserve status quo, not to protect the citizens. Before Sweden had a gun law, Swedish cops usually didn't carry guns. On the very same date that it became mandatory with gun licenses, the 1st of January 1927, it also became mandatory for Swedish cops to always carry guns.
Actually that's somewhat dishonest. Not every Swedish cop carries a gun and not every Swedish cop is required to carry one. Which I assume you know.
And now we are splitting hairs. All patrolling Swedish cops are armed, as opposed to before 1927. It's usually the patrolling cops shooting at people, not the ones sitting at the station filling in papers.
-
Because I can say with reasonable confidence that my IQ is significantly higher than yours. Because you don't actually prove anything, you just postulate something that happens to fit your twisted argument and go from there. We mean this, Adam's intelligence is that, etc, etc, etc. Because, basically, you don't have a leg to stand on.
So much stranger that you don't have the confidence to argue in an honest way, then.
Why don't you finally back up what you are saying? Show that I am not being honest or that I don't argue in an honest way. And show that Adam is less intelligent than you are, because you seem to *know*, somehow.
Which is? I think I did compare 'merican numbers with Japanese ones.
I think I am winning this one. Or rather, you lot are losing it. Your lack of a coherent argument is enough. It's enough for me to pop in from time to time.
The greater perspective is that without a gun, or even with a gun but with gun laws like the Swedish one it is both nearly impossible to legally defend yourself from a criminal and also to protect yourself from the state if necessary. Dictatorships disarm the people or at least the groups they want to oppress and murder. This goes for "democracies" as well.
That's "the greater perspective"? Sorry but I was rather expecting more.
No, I can't. Can you guarantee that they will? And why would that matter? Can you guarantee *anything* about the future?
Why isn't it an honest way to argue? I fail to see the logic. Neither the US or Japan is comparable with Bosnia/Syria.
But if you want we can include gun statistics from those two countries into the discussion. Should you dig up the numbers or should I?
Gun statisitics have nothing to do with it. The fact is that with gun control it's easier for the state to murder its citizens. You demand that other people not only risk to be defenceless against ordinary criminals but also risk to end up in a situation like in Bosnia and Syria.
Not following your reasoning here. At all.
Gun statistics are important, though, because they do give some insight into different alternatives.
No, but I can if you want me to.
:LMAO:
::)
Don't roll your eyes. Make an argument that is coherent instead.
-
lol I am definitely less intelligent than u?
I love how you know that over the internet.
You are less intelligent, since it's obvious that you have a limited understanding of some things.
In odeon's case it is that he simply rejects facts that are too unpleasant. In your case it's a lack of understanding what it's all about in the first place.
How does a disagreement equal "limited understanding"?
It's just not that he disagrees. It is obvious that he often can't grasp the whole picture in a debate. In your case it's obvious that you can but that you avoid certain questions, drag up my disability etc instead of discussing the whole picture in an honest way.
Did it ever occur to you that he, in fact, does grasp the whole picture while you don't? Which is why he answers in a seemingly incomprehensible way.
Your disability is perfectly safe with me, btw. I fully support your right to it but not for the reasons you give. I simply think it is the decent thing to do.
Adam doesn't grasp the whole picture. I'm on disability now, but I have been out in the real world, so to speak, when I was younger. Adam lives in an illusion.
So you keep saying but I really think it's time you backed it up.
-
No one ever chose to have a government in the first place, not anymore than anyone ever chose to get raped.
Most sensible people wouldn't agree with you though. Most people accept that, while not perfect, govt is necessary
For what?
Let's go back to 1750. You are an independent farmer. What the hell do you need a government for? They only steal the fruits of your labour and send you to die for them in wars.
You go back to 1750. See if the state is willing to pay your bills. Me, I'm staying in 2013.
This was a simple example of why no one needs the state if they have something they can live on without support from the outside. Of course you couldn't be honest enough not to twist my words and use ad hominem.
Or we could invent the term argumentum ad pensionem: if you don't have an income from work you are disqualified from discussing abolishing the state ::)
Why is it dishonest to point out that it's no longer 1750?
Because the principle behind the state is the same as in 1750: it is there for those in power. That there is health care, free education etc is not because the politicians are so warm-hearted but because it's easier to bribe the sheeple to obey than to force them. "Democracy" and "welfare state" is simply easier to run and more stable than an outright dictatorship.
Sorry but
:LMAO:
-
It was a qualified guess, yes, but not an accident. Not a fluke.
And most people now, as in 1920 or 1900, don't actually care, nor do they possess the mental faculties or the knowledge to make such a guess. What's your point? The rolling eyes in your previous post surely meant *something*.
Since you can't predict the future you can't say for sure that something like in Bosnia or Syria will never happen. Yet you are arguing from the point of view that the future will be as stable as the present.
I am most certainly not. I am arguing that the present would be more stable and, more importantly, safer, without easy access to guns.
-
You are stuck either in that kind of thinking or some other kind of thinking.
Or you are, and can't get past it even though most of us see that you are, at best, entertaining a private pipe dream.
You know that the gun law is there to preserve status quo, not to protect the citizens. Before Sweden had a gun law, Swedish cops usually didn't carry guns. On the very same date that it became mandatory with gun licenses, the 1st of January 1927, it also became mandatory for Swedish cops to always carry guns.
Actually that's somewhat dishonest. Not every Swedish cop carries a gun and not every Swedish cop is required to carry one. Which I assume you know.
And now we are splitting hairs. All patrolling Swedish cops are armed, as opposed to before 1927. It's usually the patrolling cops shooting at people, not the ones sitting at the station filling in papers.
You talk about slitting hairs while arguing that the present is quite similar to 1750? I mean really?
-
Why don't you finally back up what you are saying? Show that I am not being honest or that I don't argue in an honest way. And show that Adam is less intelligent than you are, because you seem to *know*, somehow.
You are pretending that gun laws aren't there to protect the ones in power. You were splitting hairs about a few cops not being armed, when it is a fact that patrolling cops are carrying guns from the very same date it became mandatory with licenses for most civilian guns.
That's "the greater perspective"? Sorry but I was rather expecting more.
So it's not true that it is incredibly hard to legally defend yourself successfully against criminals in Sweden? It is not true that dictators disarm (groups of) people that they want to oppress and murder?
Not following your reasoning here. At all.
Gun statistics are important, though, because they do give some insight into different alternatives.
You mean gun statistics give an insight in how to legally defend yourself from criminals with laws like the Swedish ones? They give insight in how not end up in a sitaution like that in Syria?
Don't roll your eyes. Make an argument that is coherent instead.
I do all the time.
-
You talk about slitting hairs while arguing that the present is quite similar to 1750? I mean really?
You are asking for examples of dishonesty. I said that the state is run by the same principles as in 1750. Yet you can't argue against it in an honest way but are again twisting my words.
-
No one ever chose to have a government in the first place, not anymore than anyone ever chose to get raped.
Most sensible people wouldn't agree with you though. Most people accept that, while not perfect, govt is necessary
For what?
Let's go back to 1750. You are an independent farmer. What the hell do you need a government for? They only steal the fruits of your labour and send you to die for them in wars.
You go back to 1750. See if the state is willing to pay your bills. Me, I'm staying in 2013.
This was a simple example of why no one needs the state if they have something they can live on without support from the outside. Of course you couldn't be honest enough not to twist my words and use ad hominem.
Or we could invent the term argumentum ad pensionem: if you don't have an income from work you are disqualified from discussing abolishing the state ::)
Why is it dishonest to point out that it's no longer 1750?
Because the principle behind the state is the same as in 1750: it is there for those in power. That there is health care, free education etc is not because the politicians are so warm-hearted but because it's easier to bribe the sheeple to obey than to force them. "Democracy" and "welfare state" is simply easier to run and more stable than an outright dictatorship.
Sorry but
:LMAO:
What's wrong with that statement? Some months ago you yourself told how you think the politicians are breaking laws when it comes to surveillance. Yet you seem to trust this system in some strange way anyway?
-
It was a qualified guess, yes, but not an accident. Not a fluke.
And most people now, as in 1920 or 1900, don't actually care, nor do they possess the mental faculties or the knowledge to make such a guess. What's your point? The rolling eyes in your previous post surely meant *something*.
Since you can't predict the future you can't say for sure that something like in Bosnia or Syria will never happen. Yet you are arguing from the point of view that the future will be as stable as the present.
I am most certainly not. I am arguing that the present would be more stable and, more importantly, safer, without easy access to guns.
It would only be safer in the respect that accidents with legal guns would be less common. In all other respects it would be less safe. Does it seem like the gun law is stopping criminals from shooting in Göteborg? Would it be harder for them to shoot each other and innocent bystanders if the gun law got more rigid than it is?
-
Why don't you finally back up what you are saying? Show that I am not being honest or that I don't argue in an honest way. And show that Adam is less intelligent than you are, because you seem to *know*, somehow.
You are pretending that gun laws aren't there to protect the ones in power. You were splitting hairs about a few cops not being armed, when it is a fact that patrolling cops are carrying guns from the very same date it became mandatory with licenses for most civilian guns.
I'm not pretending anything. I was not splitting hairs, I was pointing out how you conveniently ignored some rather pertinent details while going back 86 years. Not that I fully grasp what it had to do with anything.
And I still want to know how you know Adam to be less intelligent than you.
That's "the greater perspective"? Sorry but I was rather expecting more.
So it's not true that it is incredibly hard to legally defend yourself successfully against criminals in Sweden? It is not true that dictators disarm (groups of) people that they want to oppress and murder?
And that largely irrelevant piece of pro-gun propaganda for the extreme right-wing folks is supposed to be the greater perspective? I was expecting more.
Not following your reasoning here. At all.
Gun statistics are important, though, because they do give some insight into different alternatives.
You mean gun statistics give an insight in how to legally defend yourself from criminals with laws like the Swedish ones? They give insight in how not end up in a sitaution like that in Syria?
Don't roll your eyes. Make an argument that is coherent instead.
I do all the time.
Must have blinked, then.
-
You talk about slitting hairs while arguing that the present is quite similar to 1750? I mean really?
You are asking for examples of dishonesty. I said that the state is run by the same principles as in 1750. Yet you can't argue against it in an honest way but are again twisting my words.
You are accusing me of twisting your words while telling me what I think? That's rich, Lit, even by your standards.
-
No one ever chose to have a government in the first place, not anymore than anyone ever chose to get raped.
Most sensible people wouldn't agree with you though. Most people accept that, while not perfect, govt is necessary
For what?
Let's go back to 1750. You are an independent farmer. What the hell do you need a government for? They only steal the fruits of your labour and send you to die for them in wars.
You go back to 1750. See if the state is willing to pay your bills. Me, I'm staying in 2013.
This was a simple example of why no one needs the state if they have something they can live on without support from the outside. Of course you couldn't be honest enough not to twist my words and use ad hominem.
Or we could invent the term argumentum ad pensionem: if you don't have an income from work you are disqualified from discussing abolishing the state ::)
Why is it dishonest to point out that it's no longer 1750?
Because the principle behind the state is the same as in 1750: it is there for those in power. That there is health care, free education etc is not because the politicians are so warm-hearted but because it's easier to bribe the sheeple to obey than to force them. "Democracy" and "welfare state" is simply easier to run and more stable than an outright dictatorship.
Sorry but
:LMAO:
What's wrong with that statement? Some months ago you yourself told how you think the politicians are breaking laws when it comes to surveillance. Yet you seem to trust this system in some strange way anyway?
What's wrong with it? Seriously? Did you actually read any of my replies before going off on yet another tirade? Did you even consider actually addressing anything I wrote instead of simply writing in response to something you assumed was there? This is bizarre, Lit.
-
I'm not pretending anything. I was not splitting hairs, I was pointing out how you conveniently ignored some rather pertinent details while going back 86 years. Not that I fully grasp what it had to do with anything.
And I still want to know how you know Adam to be less intelligent than you.
Pertinent detalis? Patrolling cops 1926 were usually carrying no firearms. Patrolling cops ever since are carrying firearms. On the very same date that patrolling cops started to carry firearms, licensing got mandatory for most civilian guns. That's the important facts, not that the cops are not being armed while working indoors.
Adam is unable to see the whole picture.
And that largely irrelevant piece of pro-gun propaganda for the extreme right-wing folks is supposed to be the greater perspective? I was expecting more.
Yes, that's irrelevant, as long as you are not a crime victim or a civil war breaks out.
-
It was a qualified guess, yes, but not an accident. Not a fluke.
And most people now, as in 1920 or 1900, don't actually care, nor do they possess the mental faculties or the knowledge to make such a guess. What's your point? The rolling eyes in your previous post surely meant *something*.
Since you can't predict the future you can't say for sure that something like in Bosnia or Syria will never happen. Yet you are arguing from the point of view that the future will be as stable as the present.
I am most certainly not. I am arguing that the present would be more stable and, more importantly, safer, without easy access to guns.
It would only be safer in the respect that accidents with legal guns would be less common. In all other respects it would be less safe. Does it seem like the gun law is stopping criminals from shooting in Göteborg? Would it be harder for them to shoot each other and innocent bystanders if the gun law got more rigid than it is?
Yes, it would.
-
It was a qualified guess, yes, but not an accident. Not a fluke.
And most people now, as in 1920 or 1900, don't actually care, nor do they possess the mental faculties or the knowledge to make such a guess. What's your point? The rolling eyes in your previous post surely meant *something*.
Since you can't predict the future you can't say for sure that something like in Bosnia or Syria will never happen. Yet you are arguing from the point of view that the future will be as stable as the present.
I am most certainly not. I am arguing that the present would be more stable and, more importantly, safer, without easy access to guns.
It would only be safer in the respect that accidents with legal guns would be less common. In all other respects it would be less safe. Does it seem like the gun law is stopping criminals from shooting in Göteborg? Would it be harder for them to shoot each other and innocent bystanders if the gun law got more rigid than it is?
Yes, it would.
How? The guns they are using were never legal to start with.
-
Exactly. Please tell me how criminals obey the law.
-
Exactly. Please tell me how criminals obey the law.
better, how many 'blind' criminals obey the law?
3. The answer is 3.
-
Exactly. Please tell me how criminals obey the law.
One law at a time?
-
Adam is unable to see the whole picture.
Or you miss his point, which, following your own logic, makes you the less intelligent one.
-
Exactly. Please tell me how criminals obey the law.
One law at a time?
::)
Criminals have guns that were smuggled in here. They were never licensed to start with. Even if you make all guns completely illegal, that won't change a thing for the criminals' access to them.
-
Adam is unable to see the whole picture.
Or you miss his point, which, following your own logic, makes you the less intelligent one.
::)
You don't even understand that the criminals shooting in Göteborg get their guns from abroad. You suggested harsher legislation (it can't get much harder without banning civilian guns completely), the "solution" that every populistic dumbfuck politician suggests every time someone is shooting with illegal guns.
So you might score better on an IQ test, but you don't understand very simple facts about reality. People who have an intelligence outside IQ tests know that problems can never be solved with legislation, since criminals don't care about laws.
-
You do realise that this is going nowhere, right? It's a completely pointless exercise. Sure, we can do another couple of rounds, but do you honestly think anything will change? Do you honestly believe you can change my mind here when you haven't been able to in the past?
-
You can't be unaware of the fact that most illegal guns were smuggled in here and not stolen from people who had them legally? You know that I'm right when I'm saying that legislation won't make them disappear. If I'm wrong, tell me how this miracle would happen. I don't have the intelligence to grasp how criminals would suddenly obey laws that they didn't obey before.
-
I understand that you are the kind of person who gets a feeling of safety when things are thoroughly regulated. Many people are like that. I wouldn't say that such thinking is what best characterizes a highly intelligent mind, though.
-
And there you are, again telling me what I think, what kind of person I am. This is going nowhere. I've had more fruitful discussions with brick walls.
-
Exactly. Please tell me how criminals obey the law.
One law at a time?
Knock yourself out man.
-
Exactly. Please tell me how criminals obey the law.
One law at a time?
Knock yourself out man.
You don't like my answer?
-
Exactly. Please tell me how criminals obey the law.
One law at a time?
Knock yourself out man.
You don't like my answer?
No that's not it. Its an American expression. It means, "go ahead" or "lets do it".
-
Exactly. Please tell me how criminals obey the law.
One law at a time?
Knock yourself out man.
You don't like my answer?
No that's not it. Its an American expression. It means, "go ahead" or "lets do it".
Yeah, I know the expression. I just don't understand what you are trying to say in this context.
-
Exactly. Please tell me how criminals obey the law.
One law at a time?
It means, yessir. One law at a time. Lets hear how you think criminals are moral and productive people who follow them. If you gotta address them one at a time, sure thing. I will read all your evaluations.
Knock yourself out man.
You don't like my answer?
No that's not it. Its an American expression. It means, "go ahead" or "lets do it".
Yeah, I know the expression. I just don't understand what you are trying to say in this context.
-
Nah, not interested. There's little point to this thread beyond a one-liner or two.
-
Stupid authorities in Iowa. Arming blind people. In Sweden you can't even carry a gun in self-defence if you are 100% sane in every respect. Sweden good. Iowa bad. Boohoo.
::)
-
Nah, not interested. There's little point to this thread beyond a one-liner or two.
Theres little point on your part, yes. You know full well criminals don't care about law because they are criminals.
-
<insert suitable one-liner here>
-
<insert suitable one-liner here>
You should make that a custom BB code. :zoinks:
-
<insert suitable one-liner here>
You should make that a custom BB code. :zoinks:
http://www.pageplugins.com/generators/oneliners/ (http://www.pageplugins.com/generators/oneliners/)
-
Adam doesn't grasp the whole picture. I'm on disability now, but I have been out in the real world, so to speak, when I was younger. Adam lives in an illusion.
What makes you think I don't "grasp the whole picture"?
You can tell that from a few half-arsed posts on a thread on the internet? I don't fail to grasp what you're saying - I simply DISAGREE with you.
Also, how am I living in an illusion? You're the one who thinks we should all be living like 17th century farmers
And in all fairness... you don't really know much about my life.
-
And I still want to know how you know Adam to be less intelligent than you.
Adam is unable to see the whole picture.
Lol is that meant to be a response to odeon's question.
Seems a bit circular to me. Adam's too thick to get it? What makes you think that? Becuase he doesn't get the whole picture? Why doesn't he get the whole picture? Because he's too thick
Lit, I don't really care about the intelligence thing, as I'm pretty confident I'm not less intelligent than you are... but please explain how I'm not living in the real world (when you presumably are? :laugh: ) and what "bigger picture" I'm failing to get.
-
Exactly. Please tell me how criminals obey the law.
One law at a time?
::)
Criminals have guns that were smuggled in here. They were never licensed to start with. Even if you make all guns completely illegal, that won't change a thing for the criminals' access to them.
It's not just career criminals who kill, y'know.
And generally, those types are drug dealers and gang leaders. They mostly target OTHER criminals
Sure, the only people with guns in the UK are a few criminals. But the VICTIMS tend to be criminals too.
In the UK, you're only significantly at risk of gun violence if you're in a gang or hanging out with some seriously dodgy people.
If EVERYONE had a gun though, anyone would be at risk.
Gun violence here = gang members shooting each other up. Drug dealers etc.
Gun violence in the US = crimes of passion, kids accidentally shooting themselves, nutcases shooting up their schools, shopping malls, cinemas etc etc etc
Personally, between the two, I'd much rather go with the UK version. So saying "only criminals have guns" doesn't really change things for me.
-
And I still want to know how you know Adam to be less intelligent than you.
Adam is unable to see the whole picture.
Lol is that meant to be a response to odeon's question.
Seems a bit circular to me. Adam's too thick to get it? What makes you think that? Becuase he doesn't get the whole picture? Why doesn't he get the whole picture? Because he's too thick
Lit, I don't really care about the intelligence thing, as I'm pretty confident I'm not less intelligent than you are... but please explain how I'm not living in the real world (when you presumably are? :laugh: ) and what "bigger picture" I'm failing to get.
If I put it this way: Rage has experience of the real world. You don't. Rage doesn't believe in the fraud about "democracy" etc. He knows that it is a fraud. You think that you might get a real change just by voting Labour. You can't.
-
It's not just career criminals who kill, y'know.
And generally, those types are drug dealers and gang leaders. They mostly target OTHER criminals
Sure, the only people with guns in the UK are a few criminals. But the VICTIMS tend to be criminals too.
That's what they often say in Sweden too. The incredible thing is that you think that it is OK with criminals having illegal guns and just shooting at each other but not that law-abiding persons should be able to easily get and carry guns in self-defence. It's real "1984" logic: guns should be banned for law-abiding people but it's "OK" if criminals shoot at each other with illegal guns :facepalm2:
In the UK, you're only significantly at risk of gun violence if you're in a gang or hanging out with some seriously dodgy people.
Same in Sweden. That doesn't mean that you can't get shot by mistake or become a victim of other crimes because you can't defend yourself.
If EVERYONE had a gun though, anyone would be at risk.
This is insane. You are saying that it is more dangerous with armed law-abiding citizens than with armed criminals only.
Gun violence here = gang members shooting each other up. Drug dealers etc.
Gun violence in the US = crimes of passion, kids accidentally shooting themselves, nutcases shooting up their schools, shopping malls, cinemas etc etc etc
Freedom isn't for free. But then we should outlaw alcohol, tobacco, cars etc too, but you have a hangup on guns, because you are passive-aggressive.
But most gun owners never kill or hurt anyone.
Personally, between the two, I'd much rather go with the UK version. So saying "only criminals have guns" doesn't really change things for me.
No, you consider it morally right with armed criminals but not with armed law-abiding people :facepalm2:
-
All youre doing is repeating yourself again.
1. HOW do you know i don't hav experience of the real world? Simply because I haven't come to the same conclusions that you hvae?
2. Actually no, I don't think that "just voting Labour" will bring real change to the world. Of course it takes more than that.
Tell me, what are YOU doing to bring about change? Fuck all, by the sound of it
-
No, I don't think it's "ok" that criminals have guns. Not much more we can do about it though, is there. I said I wouldn't want EVERYONE ELSE to have guns too
And while we're on the subject of criminals. Criminals do a lot of things we would rather people didn't do. That's why they're criminals.
I wouldnt want everyone else raping and stealing either.
-
All youre doing is repeating yourself again.
1. HOW do you know i don't hav experience of the real world? Simply because I haven't come to the same conclusions that you hvae?
If you don't come to similar conclusions as Rage and me you must lack real life experience, yes.
2. Actually no, I don't think that "just voting Labour" will bring real change to the world. Of course it takes more than that.
Tell me, what are YOU doing to bring about change? Fuck all, by the sound of it
I don't know what to do, since the majority is a bunch of brain-washed idiots and sheeps. I'm very glad that I don't contribute to this sick "society", though.
-
No, I don't think it's "ok" that criminals have guns. Not much more we can do about it though, is there. I said I wouldn't want EVERYONE ELSE to have guns too
On the contrary. The solution is to arm every law-abiding person so they can defend themselves.
And while we're on the subject of criminals. Criminals do a lot of things we would rather people didn't do. That's why they're criminals.
I wouldnt want everyone else raping and stealing either.
Wishful thinking doesn't help. But a dead rapist or robber won't commit another crime.
-
All youre doing is repeating yourself again.
1. HOW do you know i don't hav experience of the real world? Simply because I haven't come to the same conclusions that you hvae?
If you don't come to similar conclusions as Rage and me you must lack real life experience, yes.
2. Actually no, I don't think that "just voting Labour" will bring real change to the world. Of course it takes more than that.
Tell me, what are YOU doing to bring about change? Fuck all, by the sound of it
I don't know what to do, since the majority is a bunch of brain-washed idiots and sheeps. I'm very glad that I don't contribute to this sick "society", though.
I agree with you on the basics of gun control, and I think that this is a logical fallacy. Perhaps Adam has examined the available evidence and come to a different conclusion. I think he's wrong, and perhaps he is willfully blind to the idea of an armed revolt being a valid reason to own guns. I don't see how Adam's experience is relevant.
Adam, I know that we've covered this elsewhere, but do you have experience with guns?
-
If you don't come to similar conclusions as Rage and me you must lack real life experience, yes.
LOL
I'm not sure how to respond to that other than... what?
I don't know what to do, since the majority is a bunch of brain-washed idiots and sheeps. I'm very glad that I don't contribute to this sick "society", though.
Do you ever sit down for a minute and wonder, "why is it that almost everyone except me (Lit) is a brainless sheep?"
What's more likely? That YOU are the only one who "get it" or that you are just deluded yourself
-
What's more likely? That YOU are the only one who "get it" or that you are just deluded yourself
Here we have it again. Argumentum ad populum. Like the majority knew anything.
-
I agree with you on the basics of gun control, and I think that this is a logical fallacy. Perhaps Adam has examined the available evidence and come to a different conclusion. I think he's wrong, and perhaps he is willfully blind to the idea of an armed revolt being a valid reason to own guns. I don't see how Adam's experience is relevant.
:agreed:
I don't assume everyone who disagrees with me on something is simply too deluded, thick or brainwashed to "get it"
Adam, I know that we've covered this elsewhere, but do you have experience with guns?
Do you mean as in going shooting or something?
I've never even held a loaded gun myself.
I'd quite like to though.
I actually like guns. I have some little model guns and read a lot of military history.
I just don't want my neighbours having them.
But yeah, I have never fired a gun before.
-
---
What's more likely? That YOU are the only one who "get it" or that you are just deluded yourself
Here we have it again. Argumentum ad populum. Like the majority knew anything.
No. I'm not saying the majority are always right. far from it. (I am in the minority on a LOT of things)
I'm saying what are the chances that YOU are virtually the ONLY one who "gets it"?
-
---
What's more likely? That YOU are the only one who "get it" or that you are just deluded yourself
Here we have it again. Argumentum ad populum. Like the majority knew anything.
No. I'm not saying the majority are always right. far from it. (I am in the minority on a LOT of things)
I'm saying what are the chances that YOU are virtually the ONLY one who "gets it"?
I'm not the only one getting it. I guess that quite some people get it but most don't speak their minds.
-
And, let me quess, anyone who doesn't "get it" just isnt living in the real world?
You still haven't explained to me how I don't have the right "experience" and how I'm not living in the real world btw
And let's not go round in circles here - don't just say because I don't get it or I'm stupid. Exactly HOW am I not living in the real world?
-
And, let me quess, anyone who doesn't "get it" just isnt living in the real world?
You still haven't explained to me how I don't have the right "experience" and how I'm not living in the real world btw
And let's not go round in circles here - don't just say because I don't get it or I'm stupid. Exactly HOW am I not living in the real world?
You don't understand that society is rotten to the bone. People with life experience know that it is.
-
And, let me quess, anyone who doesn't "get it" just isnt living in the real world?
You still haven't explained to me how I don't have the right "experience" and how I'm not living in the real world btw
And let's not go round in circles here - don't just say because I don't get it or I'm stupid. Exactly HOW am I not living in the real world?
You don't understand that society is rotten to the bone. People with life experience know that it is.
It's possible for Adam to have all of the available evidence and still disagree with you.
-
And generally, those types are drug dealers and gang leaders. They mostly target OTHER criminals
Or helpless, unarmed people.
Gun violence in the US = crimes of passion, kids accidentally shooting themselves, nutcases shooting up their schools, shopping malls, cinemas etc etc etc
:facepalm2:
crimes of passion, kids accidentally shooting themselves
Guns being stored or used irresponsibly. This could be remedied without incinerating them and only allowing military and law enforcement to be armed. *see my earlier proposal
nutcases shooting up their schools, shopping malls, cinemas etc etc etc
Insane or criminal people taking advantage of GUN FREE ZONES. Places where nobody is armed, and nobody can stop them. The recent navy yard shooting? IT was on a military post, but it was also within.....*drumroll please* A GUN FREE ZONE, SIR. What happened when armed people showed up? The guy was killed.
..yeah. :dunno:
-
If you don't come to similar conclusions as Rage and me you must lack real life experience, yes.
This perfectly sums up why it's pointless to attempt a discussion with you.
-
What's more likely? That YOU are the only one who "get it" or that you are just deluded yourself
Here we have it again. Argumentum ad populum. Like the majority knew anything.
You don't exactly possess the kind of credibility that will sway opinions here.
-
???
-
If you don't come to similar conclusions as Rage and me you must lack real life experience, yes.
This perfectly sums up why it's pointless to attempt a discussion with you.
You showed your own narrow-mindedness by starting this thread to begin with.
-
Local advocates for the visually impaired were split on the issue, but Iowa isn’t the only state that grants such permits to the blind.
In Michigan, for example, the blind can hunt with laser-sighted guns as long as they have a sighted adult aged 18 or older with them. (A blind woman there nabbed a black bear a few years ago.) Wisconsin and Texas have similar rules requiring sighted companions.
And last year, a New Jersey judge ordered the state to return confiscated guns to a blind veteran who was allowed to keep his gun permit.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2013/09/16/dont-expect-iowa-to-revoke-gun-permits-for-the-blind-its-not-even-the-only-state-that-offers-them/ (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2013/09/16/dont-expect-iowa-to-revoke-gun-permits-for-the-blind-its-not-even-the-only-state-that-offers-them/)
-
Local advocates for the visually impaired were split on the issue, but Iowa isn’t the only state that grants such permits to the blind.
In Michigan, for example, the blind can hunt with laser-sighted guns as long as they have a sighted adult aged 18 or older with them. (A blind woman there nabbed a black bear a few years ago.) Wisconsin and Texas have similar rules requiring sighted companions.
And last year, a New Jersey judge ordered the state to return confiscated guns to a blind veteran who was allowed to keep his gun permit.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2013/09/16/dont-expect-iowa-to-revoke-gun-permits-for-the-blind-its-not-even-the-only-state-that-offers-them/ (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2013/09/16/dont-expect-iowa-to-revoke-gun-permits-for-the-blind-its-not-even-the-only-state-that-offers-them/)
(http://static.fjcdn.com/gifs/What+i+wanna+do+whn+i+m+pissed+off.+angry+cats_4c2e2c_3589663.gif)
-
And, let me quess, anyone who doesn't "get it" just isnt living in the real world?
You still haven't explained to me how I don't have the right "experience" and how I'm not living in the real world btw
And let's not go round in circles here - don't just say because I don't get it or I'm stupid. Exactly HOW am I not living in the real world?
You don't understand that society is rotten to the bone. People with life experience know that it is.
So I don't have life experience?
Sorry Lit but you really know fuck all about my life.
Also it's kind of pathetic that you're judging this based on the conclusions I've come to from my experiences, rather than the experiences themsleves.
You don't know much about my life experiences, but becuase I haven't come to the same conclusions as you, I *must* have no experience?
-
Insane or criminal people taking advantage of GUN FREE ZONES. Places where nobody is armed, and nobody can stop them. The recent navy yard shooting? IT was on a military post, but it was also within.....*drumroll please* A GUN FREE ZONE, SIR. What happened when armed people showed up? The guy was killed.
..yeah. :dunno:
Nice theory.
Pretty much EVERYWHERE over here is a gun-free zone.
How come we don't get these shootings too then?
Hmm... maybe it's because we don't all have access to fucking guns.
-
If you don't come to similar conclusions as Rage and me you must lack real life experience, yes.
This perfectly sums up why it's pointless to attempt a discussion with you.
You showed your own narrow-mindedness by starting this thread to begin with.
Does "narrow minded" mean "doesn't agree with Lit" here?
-
And, let me quess, anyone who doesn't "get it" just isnt living in the real world?
You still haven't explained to me how I don't have the right "experience" and how I'm not living in the real world btw
And let's not go round in circles here - don't just say because I don't get it or I'm stupid. Exactly HOW am I not living in the real world?
You don't understand that society is rotten to the bone. People with life experience know that it is.
So I don't have life experience?
Sorry Lit but you really know fuck all about my life.
Also it's kind of pathetic that you're judging this based on the conclusions I've come to from my experiences, rather than the experiences themsleves.
You don't know much about my life experiences, but becuase I haven't come to the same conclusions as you, I *must* have no experience?
You never went to war. I never did either. But those I know who went to war and were not broken down by the experience are all pro guns. They know from experience that without guns you are helpless.
-
If you don't come to similar conclusions as Rage and me you must lack real life experience, yes.
This perfectly sums up why it's pointless to attempt a discussion with you.
You showed your own narrow-mindedness by starting this thread to begin with.
Does "narrow minded" mean "doesn't agree with Lit" here?
No, it means that he doesn't think that blind people should have the same right to defend themselves as seeing people. Otherwise he wouldn't have mocked the fact that blind people are getting gun permits in Iowa.
-
Insane or criminal people taking advantage of GUN FREE ZONES. Places where nobody is armed, and nobody can stop them. The recent navy yard shooting? IT was on a military post, but it was also within.....*drumroll please* A GUN FREE ZONE, SIR. What happened when armed people showed up? The guy was killed.
..yeah. :dunno:
Nice theory.
Pretty much EVERYWHERE over here is a gun-free zone.
How come we don't get these shootings too then?
Hmm... maybe it's because we don't all have access to fucking guns.
Oh my god you've stopped criminal activity and people killing each other by removing the guns? AMAZING! You've got it all figured out then! :laugh:
-
You never went to war. I never did either.
LOL
Ok so we're equal on that one then. That was pretty pointless.
Go on. Where else am I lacking in life experience? Please choose something that doesn't also apply to you this time.
btw I have known guys who have been to war before. Including a former SAS guy with PTSD.
-
If you don't come to similar conclusions as Rage and me you must lack real life experience, yes.
This perfectly sums up why it's pointless to attempt a discussion with you.
You showed your own narrow-mindedness by starting this thread to begin with.
Does "narrow minded" mean "doesn't agree with Lit" here?
No, it means that he doesn't think that blind people should have the same right to defend themselves as seeing people. Otherwise he wouldn't have mocked the fact that blind people are getting gun permits in Iowa.
Shouldn't the mentally ill also have the right to defend themselves?
But there are also laws preventing people with certain mental illnesses from owning guns.
-
Insane or criminal people taking advantage of GUN FREE ZONES. Places where nobody is armed, and nobody can stop them. The recent navy yard shooting? IT was on a military post, but it was also within.....*drumroll please* A GUN FREE ZONE, SIR. What happened when armed people showed up? The guy was killed.
..yeah. :dunno:
Nice theory.
Pretty much EVERYWHERE over here is a gun-free zone.
How come we don't get these shootings too then?
Hmm... maybe it's because we don't all have access to fucking guns.
Oh my god you've stopped criminal activity and people killing each other by removing the guns? AMAZING! You've got it all figured out then! :laugh:
Putting words in my mouth again?
Of course I never said we've eradicated criminal activity.
I think kids in the US are much more likely to be shot than kids in the UK. That's pretty much the gist of what I was saying
If you took that to mean, "we have zero crime in the UK!" then you clearly didn't understand
-
If you don't come to similar conclusions as Rage and me you must lack real life experience, yes.
This perfectly sums up why it's pointless to attempt a discussion with you.
You showed your own narrow-mindedness by starting this thread to begin with.
Does "narrow minded" mean "doesn't agree with Lit" here?
No, it means that he doesn't think that blind people should have the same right to defend themselves as seeing people. Otherwise he wouldn't have mocked the fact that blind people are getting gun permits in Iowa.
Shouldn't the mentally ill also have the right to defend themselves?
But there are also laws preventing people with certain mental illnesses from owning guns.
There shouldn't be gun laws at all. I have explained this. There should preferrably be no laws at all, since legislation itself is a crime. Read Spooner: Natural Law (http://lysanderspooner.org/node/59)
The really mentally ill (psychopaths) are running the nations, the EU etc, by the way.
-
Insane or criminal people taking advantage of GUN FREE ZONES. Places where nobody is armed, and nobody can stop them. The recent navy yard shooting? IT was on a military post, but it was also within.....*drumroll please* A GUN FREE ZONE, SIR. What happened when armed people showed up? The guy was killed.
..yeah. :dunno:
Nice theory.
Pretty much EVERYWHERE over here is a gun-free zone.
How come we don't get these shootings too then?
Hmm... maybe it's because we don't all have access to fucking guns.
Oh my god you've stopped criminal activity and people killing each other by removing the guns? AMAZING! You've got it all figured out then! :laugh:
Putting words in my mouth again?
Of course I never said we've eradicated criminal activity.
I think kids in the US are much more likely to be shot than kids in the UK. That's pretty much the gist of what I was saying
If you took that to mean, "we have zero crime in the UK!" then you clearly didn't understand
I could kill you with a pencil. Just sayin.
-
Lysander Spooner quotes (http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/l/lysander_spooner.html)
:viking:
-
(http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a303/e3mrk/kentstate.png)
If you don't come to similar conclusions as Rage and me you must lack real life experience, yes.
This perfectly sums up why it's pointless to attempt a discussion with you.
You showed your own narrow-mindedness by starting this thread to begin with.
Does "narrow minded" mean "doesn't agree with Lit" here?
No, it means that he doesn't think that blind people should have the same right to defend themselves as seeing people. Otherwise he wouldn't have mocked the fact that blind people are getting gun permits in Iowa.
Shouldn't the mentally ill also have the right to defend themselves?
But there are also laws preventing people with certain mental illnesses from owning guns.
"Law" and "right" are two different concepts. People have certain rights no matter what the law says.
-
If you don't come to similar conclusions as Rage and me you must lack real life experience, yes.
This perfectly sums up why it's pointless to attempt a discussion with you.
You showed your own narrow-mindedness by starting this thread to begin with.
They should be allowed to drive public transports, too. :arrr:
-
If you don't come to similar conclusions as Rage and me you must lack real life experience, yes.
This perfectly sums up why it's pointless to attempt a discussion with you.
You showed your own narrow-mindedness by starting this thread to begin with.
Does "narrow minded" mean "doesn't agree with Lit" here?
Yes. You're also narrow-minded if you a) think guns should be banned or b) criticise the US constitution.
-
"Law" and "right" are two different concepts. People have certain rights no matter what the law says.
But which those rights are is not immediately clear, it would seem.
-
If you don't come to similar conclusions as Rage and me you must lack real life experience, yes.
This perfectly sums up why it's pointless to attempt a discussion with you.
You showed your own narrow-mindedness by starting this thread to begin with.
They should be allowed to drive public transports, too. :arrr:
:agreed: :indeed: :viking:
-
"Law" and "right" are two different concepts. People have certain rights no matter what the law says.
But which those rights are is not immediately clear, it would seem.
Everything is right that doesn't in itself hurt others. It's a very simple concept. A five year old can grasp it.
-
The REAL Reason for the Mass Shooting Epidemic in America (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OXrZPHnaJao#ws)
-
There shouldn't be gun laws at all. I have explained this.
You have explained it, yes. "It" being YOUR view on things.
Just because you explain YOUR opinion doesn't mean anyone who doesn't agree just doesn't "get it"
You can explain it all you like. If I still think it's wrong, I think it's wrong.
There should preferrably be no laws at all,
Again, preferable in YOUR OPINION. Many disagree.
-
I could kill you with a pencil. Just sayin.
Yep. But a pencil is not designed as a weapon. And of all its uses, killing is not really up there near the top.
We'v been over this before.
-
"Law" and "right" are two different concepts. People have certain rights no matter what the law says.
Everyone has the "right" to defend themselves
Not everyone is legally able to do everything that everyone else is able to though. And for sensible reasons.
A convicted sociopath shouldn't be allowed a gun. Most people would agree with that. That's just sensible. Of course he is still a human being who has the right to defend himself, but the law is there to protect everyone else as well as him.
That's what Im saying.
-
They should be allowed to drive public transports, too. :arrr:
^ This.
-
Everything is right that doesn't in itself hurt others. It's a very simple concept. A five year old can grasp it.
The way you constantly say things like this makes me wonder if it's actually just your Aspergers that's coming through in your inability to grasp that other people here doesn't see the world like you do.
Which is understandable, but then... surely you can LOGICALLY realise this, even if it doesn't come naturally to you?
I would have at least thoguht you'd be capable of that, given the wealth of experience you supposedly have.
-
"Law" and "right" are two different concepts. People have certain rights no matter what the law says.
Everyone has the "right" to defend themselves
Not everyone is legally able to do everything that everyone else is able to though. And for sensible reasons.
A convicted sociopath shouldn't be allowed a gun. Most people would agree with that. That's just sensible. Of course he is still a human being who has the right to defend himself, but the law is there to protect everyone else as well as him.
That's what Im saying.
Like Spooner says: you shouldn't give him a weapon. But Spooner would also say that it's a crime to deny him a weapon through legislation.
What you don't understand is that the biggest "sociopaths" are not convicted at all. They are running your country, my country, the EU etc and have all the weapons they could ever wish for.
-
Everything is right that doesn't in itself hurt others. It's a very simple concept. A five year old can grasp it.
The way you constantly say things like this makes me wonder if it's actually just your Aspergers that's coming through in your inability to grasp that other people here doesn't see the world like you do.
Which is understandable, but then... surely you can LOGICALLY realise this, even if it doesn't come naturally to you?
I would have at least thoguht you'd be capable of that, given the wealth of experience you supposedly have.
Give me a more consistent principle of rights than this. You can't. Everything else is arbitrary.
-
What you don't understand is that...
Lol, there you go again.
This kind of arguing just makes you look kind of inept. It's not that I don't understand it; it's that I disgree with you
the biggest "sociopaths" are not convicted at all.
While I don't know about "biggest" (what does that mean mean?) I'd agree that MOST sociopaths aren't serial killers etc, yes
They are running your country, my country, the EU etc and have all the weapons they could ever wish for.
Many sociopaths go into politics, yes. I reckon more go into business though actually
-
I could kill you with a pencil. Just sayin.
Yep. But a pencil is not designed as a weapon. And of all its uses, killing is not really up there near the top.
We'v been over this before.
A bible isn't designed as toilet paper either, but it gets the job done just fine. Yes we've been through this Adam, but this argument hold absolutely no weight with me. I'm sorry, but this point of view just seems absolutely incoherent with reality. Objects are not just what you want them to be, and neither is the physical world. Even if it was somehow possible to ban guns, and also keep criminals from getting them, the killings would not stop by a longshot.
Something else is causing this problem, and nobody seems to want to admit it because they know that a social problem is a lot more difficult to address than simply the removal of an object.
-
Its also very unfortunate that we seem to have similar goals, yet disagree about the nature of the obstacles to achieving them.
-
Adam could benefit from free guns. He doesn't look like the kind of guy that would do very well in a fight against a "chav" or what the English call them.
-
I could kill you with a pencil. Just sayin.
Yep. But a pencil is not designed as a weapon. And of all its uses, killing is not really up there near the top.
We'v been over this before.
A bible isn't designed as toilet paper either, but it gets the job done just fine. Yes we've been through this Adam, but this argument hold absolutely no weight with me. I'm sorry, but this point of view just seems absolutely incoherent with reality. Objects are not just what you want them to be, and neither is the physical world. Even if it was somehow possible to ban guns, and also keep criminals from getting them, the killings would not stop by a longshot.
Something else is causing this problem, and nobody seems to want to admit it because they know that a social problem is a lot more difficult to address than simply the removal of an object.
I complete agree with the last part.
Which is why I don't envy you. The gun problem in America is going to be much harder to solve, of course. I'm not naive enough to think that if your guns were outlawed tomorrow, everyone would bend over and take it without any shit. I know it wouldn't happen like that and I don't KNOW how would be the best way of going about that. I do however think that your society would be better off if you DIDN'T have guns.
And the Bible-toilet paper analogy doesn't quitte work. Using a bible as toilet paper is harmless. And also rare. It's pretty insignificant. Also kind of the wrong way round.
A better example for you to use would have been swords. Designed as weapons but not just used as weapons. The problem is that they're also not PRIMARILY used as weapons these days though, so aren't really a problem. Guns are though.
-
Its also very unfortunate that we seem to have similar goals, yet disagree about the nature of the obstacles to achieving them.
:agree:
I respect you for at least feeling strongly about improving the world, however misguided I feel your views are (I'm sure you feel the same way about mine haha)
-
Its also very unfortunate that we seem to have similar goals, yet disagree about the nature of the obstacles to achieving them.
:agree:
I respect you for at least feeling strongly about improving the world, however misguided I feel your views are (I'm sure you feel the same way about mine haha)
Indeed. Its a complicated fuckin issue, especially because of our cultural differences. I not only worry about the backlash to a gun ban(which would be sooo violent and unpleasant), but also the several years of adjustment that criminals would have a free hand. Our law enforcement is insufficient even now at stopping under the table gun trades and sales from our borders. I garauntee that the only people a gun ban in my country would currently effect is the law abiding citizen, and it would put them in serious danger. Perhaps in the future something like this would work, but there will still be the hunting and sports shooting complaint.
I said it before, and i'll say it again. I am 100% for reasonable gun control which could have positive results in my country. I suggested the gun license scenario, as I think that would take care of a large percentage of the accidental injury and death cases, while at the same time giving people better skills to deal with an armed criminal.
I have confidence that this would neutralize a large chunk of gun violence in my country. The other part of the problem is a social one, and it has possible roots in the way parents are raising their children, education, pharmaceuticals, and many other obscure things that I could not begin to understand nor offer a solution to yet.
-
"Law" and "right" are two different concepts. People have certain rights no matter what the law says.
Everyone has the "right" to defend themselves
Not everyone is legally able to do everything that everyone else is able to though. And for sensible reasons.
A convicted sociopath shouldn't be allowed a gun. Most people would agree with that. That's just sensible. Of course he is still a human being who has the right to defend himself, but the law is there to protect everyone else as well as him.
That's what Im saying.
In terms of rights, you're wrong. Everyone has the same rights.
Convicts shouldn't be allowed guns during the terms of their punishment. The difference is that the criminal chose to commit a crime.
-
Adam isn't a philosopher :M
-
"Law" and "right" are two different concepts. People have certain rights no matter what the law says.
Everyone has the "right" to defend themselves
Not everyone is legally able to do everything that everyone else is able to though. And for sensible reasons.
A convicted sociopath shouldn't be allowed a gun. Most people would agree with that. That's just sensible. Of course he is still a human being who has the right to defend himself, but the law is there to protect everyone else as well as him.
That's what Im saying.
In terms of rights, you're wrong. Everyone has the same rights.
Convicts shouldn't be allowed guns during the terms of their punishment. The difference is that the criminal chose to commit a crime.
Maybe I'm not explaining myself well here. I'm not sure where I was wrong with that. I agree that everyone has the same rights. I said that at the start of my post. ???
Everyone has the same rights, yes.
ie everyone has the right to defend themselves
That does not necessarily mean everyone can legally do everything everyone else can do though.
ie people with certain disabilities cannot drive
-
Adam isn't a philosopher :M
and you are? :laugh:
-
Sic! Philosophus Romanus sum :M :agreed:
-
"Law" and "right" are two different concepts. People have certain rights no matter what the law says.
Everyone has the "right" to defend themselves
Not everyone is legally able to do everything that everyone else is able to though. And for sensible reasons.
A convicted sociopath shouldn't be allowed a gun. Most people would agree with that. That's just sensible. Of course he is still a human being who has the right to defend himself, but the law is there to protect everyone else as well as him.
That's what Im saying.
In terms of rights, you're wrong. Everyone has the same rights.
Convicts shouldn't be allowed guns during the terms of their punishment. The difference is that the criminal chose to commit a crime.
Maybe I'm not explaining myself well here. I'm not sure where I was wrong with that. I agree that everyone has the same rights. I said that at the start of my post. ???
Everyone has the same rights, yes.
ie everyone has the right to defend themselves
That does not necessarily mean everyone can legally do everything everyone else can do though.
ie people with certain disabilities cannot drive
Hence my skill and aptitude assessment proposal. Just sayin.
-
"Law" and "right" are two different concepts. People have certain rights no matter what the law says.
Everyone has the "right" to defend themselves
Not everyone is legally able to do everything that everyone else is able to though. And for sensible reasons.
A convicted sociopath shouldn't be allowed a gun. Most people would agree with that. That's just sensible. Of course he is still a human being who has the right to defend himself, but the law is there to protect everyone else as well as him.
That's what Im saying.
In terms of rights, you're wrong. Everyone has the same rights.
Convicts shouldn't be allowed guns during the terms of their punishment. The difference is that the criminal chose to commit a crime.
Maybe I'm not explaining myself well here. I'm not sure where I was wrong with that. I agree that everyone has the same rights. I said that at the start of my post. ???
Everyone has the same rights, yes.
ie everyone has the right to defend themselves
That does not necessarily mean everyone can legally do everything everyone else can do though.
ie people with certain disabilities cannot drive
Driving is a privilege, not a right. Owning a firearm is a right, and all rights must be granted to all citizens. All people are created equal.
To me, saying that a blind person can't own a gun is like having a citizen pass a test before being allowed to vote. Would letting people with who fail vote lead to a decrease in the quality of elections? Even if so, it wouldn't be sufficient reason to deny them their rights. If there are preconditions on who can exercise universal rights, then they aren't universal rights anymore.
-
I could kill you with a pencil. Just sayin.
Yep. But a pencil is not designed as a weapon. And of all its uses, killing is not really up there near the top.
We'v been over this before.
A bible isn't designed as toilet paper either, but it gets the job done just fine. Yes we've been through this Adam, but this argument hold absolutely no weight with me. I'm sorry, but this point of view just seems absolutely incoherent with reality. Objects are not just what you want them to be, and neither is the physical world. Even if it was somehow possible to ban guns, and also keep criminals from getting them, the killings would not stop by a longshot.
Something else is causing this problem, and nobody seems to want to admit it because they know that a social problem is a lot more difficult to address than simply the removal of an object.
By your logic we should have more killings than you, then.
-
Adam isn't a philosopher :M
Neither are you. :hahaha:
-
Driving is a privilege, not a right. Owning a firearm is a right, and all rights must be granted to all citizens. All people are created equal.
This is where we disagree. I don't see owning a firearm as a right any more than I see owning a nuke as a right.
To me, saying that a blind person can't own a gun is like having a citizen pass a test before being allowed to vote. Would letting people with who fail vote lead to a decrease in the quality of elections? Even if so, it wouldn't be sufficient reason to deny them their rights. If there are preconditions on who can exercise universal rights, then they aren't universal rights anymore.
Considering the quality of the voting population, I think you are on to something here.
But seriously, owning a gun is not a universal right. You may regard it as a right granted to you in 'merica (fuck yeah) by the constitution, but it is not a universal right.
-
Driving is a privilege, not a right. Owning a firearm is a right, and all rights must be granted to all citizens. All people are created equal.
To me, saying that a blind person can't own a gun is like having a citizen pass a test before being allowed to vote. Would letting people with who fail vote lead to a decrease in the quality of elections? Even if so, it wouldn't be sufficient reason to deny them their rights. If there are preconditions on who can exercise universal rights, then they aren't universal rights anymore.
ok I guess this is where we disagree then. i dont view carrying a gun as a right.
-
Driving is a privilege, not a right. Owning a firearm is a right, and all rights must be granted to all citizens. All people are created equal.
This is where we disagree. I don't see owning a firearm as a right any more than I see owning a nuke as a right.
To me, saying that a blind person can't own a gun is like having a citizen pass a test before being allowed to vote. Would letting people with who fail vote lead to a decrease in the quality of elections? Even if so, it wouldn't be sufficient reason to deny them their rights. If there are preconditions on who can exercise universal rights, then they aren't universal rights anymore.
Considering the quality of the voting population, I think you are on to something here.
But seriously, owning a gun is not a universal right. You may regard it as a right granted to you in 'merica (fuck yeah) by the constitution, but it is not a universal right.
ok this is pretty much what i was thinking. way too tired to be posting in here now. see ya, guys.
-
Adam isn't a philosopher :M
Neither are you. :hahaha:
I am, at least to the degree that I know what I am talking about here. I have studied philosophy at the university.
-
But seriously, owning a gun is not a universal right. You may regard it as a right granted to you in 'merica (fuck yeah) by the constitution, but it is not a universal right.
There either are universal rights or there are not. If there are no universal rights, you have no rights. No rights. In that case you must accept that the stronger is the one that is right.
Or we can postulate universal rights and don't back off on them a millimeter, like in Spooner's system. That is consistent and will guarantee you that no one infringess on your rights.
Here you also see how absurd legislation is. You are for controlling things with laws, but if you at the same time are saying that there are no universal rights you at the same time must admit that all laws are just made up and have no moral justification.
-
Driving is a privilege, not a right. Owning a firearm is a right, and all rights must be granted to all citizens. All people are created equal.
This is where we disagree. I don't see owning a firearm as a right any more than I see owning a nuke as a right.
To me, saying that a blind person can't own a gun is like having a citizen pass a test before being allowed to vote. Would letting people with who fail vote lead to a decrease in the quality of elections? Even if so, it wouldn't be sufficient reason to deny them their rights. If there are preconditions on who can exercise universal rights, then they aren't universal rights anymore.
Considering the quality of the voting population, I think you are on to something here.
But seriously, owning a gun is not a universal right. You may regard it as a right granted to you in 'merica (fuck yeah) by the constitution, but it is not a universal right.
The way I see it, you also have the right to own a gun. Your system just doesn't acknowledge it. I don't regard it as right granted to me by the Constitution; as I've mentioned, I have the right regardless of what the Constitution says.
-
You may regard it as a right granted to you in 'merica (fuck yeah) by the constitution, but it is not a universal right.
I can almost smell your contempt for us. Well fuck you too.
By your logic we should have more killings than you, then.
OBJECTION: misleading!
We were always more violent, even with you had guns. Don't even try that shit, man. Also, after guns were banned over there, violent crime skyrocketed.
(http://media2.policymic.com/86f04f29bdeacb1a0525818d2b3a0fc1.png)
Both the UK and Australia instituted strict gun control legislation which basically eliminated private gun ownership in 1997. However, neither countries' legislation had an impact on lowering violent crime, and in both cases violent crime actually went up in the years following the enactment of the gun legislation.
Some gun control advocates, like Piers Morgan, would point towards the lower homicide rate of each country, but the fact of that matter is that both countries enjoyed the same lower homicide rates than the United States even before enacting their gun legislation, making those claims disingenuous.
Moreover, despite the UK having its gun ban, the violent crime rate is still far above that of the United States, and the country has also earned the title of violent crime capital of Europe.
http://www.policymic.com/articles/24124/7-gun-control-facts-that-are-actually-myths (http://www.policymic.com/articles/24124/7-gun-control-facts-that-are-actually-myths)
Also, how many of those dead people in the statistics are career criminals, rapists, thieves, etc?
-
Driving is a privilege, not a right. Owning a firearm is a right, and all rights must be granted to all citizens. All people are created equal.
This is where we disagree. I don't see owning a firearm as a right any more than I see owning a nuke as a right.
To me, saying that a blind person can't own a gun is like having a citizen pass a test before being allowed to vote. Would letting people with who fail vote lead to a decrease in the quality of elections? Even if so, it wouldn't be sufficient reason to deny them their rights. If there are preconditions on who can exercise universal rights, then they aren't universal rights anymore.
Considering the quality of the voting population, I think you are on to something here.
But seriously, owning a gun is not a universal right. You may regard it as a right granted to you in 'merica (fuck yeah) by the constitution, but it is not a universal right.
The way I see it, you also have the right to own a gun. Your system just doesn't acknowledge it. I don't regard it as right granted to me by the Constitution; as I've mentioned, I have the right regardless of what the Constitution says.
Exactly. And as I said: if he doesn't believe in universal rights, he can't believe in rights at all. If there exists anything like rights, they have nothing to do with legislation.
-
Yeah. No gubmint ofishul tells you what your rights are. At times I am just mystified by how these progressives think, dude. Its like they actually strive to be enslaved and hate themselves along with every single part of the human condition. I know that's not true, but its the only thing that seems to give even the faintest logical pattern to their behavior.
(If you want to get snide folks, you picked the wrong fucking subject. I'll give right back.)
-
Adam isn't a philosopher :M
Neither are you. :hahaha:
I am, at least to the degree that I know what I am talking about here. I have studied philosophy at the university.
:laugh:
That doesn't make you a "philosopher" any more than I am an historian.
-
Driving is a privilege, not a right. Owning a firearm is a right, and all rights must be granted to all citizens. All people are created equal.
This is where we disagree. I don't see owning a firearm as a right any more than I see owning a nuke as a right.
To me, saying that a blind person can't own a gun is like having a citizen pass a test before being allowed to vote. Would letting people with who fail vote lead to a decrease in the quality of elections? Even if so, it wouldn't be sufficient reason to deny them their rights. If there are preconditions on who can exercise universal rights, then they aren't universal rights anymore.
Considering the quality of the voting population, I think you are on to something here.
But seriously, owning a gun is not a universal right. You may regard it as a right granted to you in 'merica (fuck yeah) by the constitution, but it is not a universal right.
The way I see it, you also have the right to own a gun. Your system just doesn't acknowledge it. I don't regard it as right granted to me by the Constitution; as I've mentioned, I have the right regardless of what the Constitution says.
Again, that's where we disagree.
I don't see how anything to do with guns is a natural right
Universal rights are things like freedom of belief, pursuit of happiness etc.
Your constitution might recognise the right to bare arms, but it's not a universal right.
-
But seriously, owning a gun is not a universal right. You may regard it as a right granted to you in 'merica (fuck yeah) by the constitution, but it is not a universal right.
There either are universal rights or there are not. If there are no universal rights, you have no rights. No rights. In that case you must accept that the stronger is the one that is right.
Universal rights aren't the only kind of rights.
Here you also see how absurd legislation is. You are for controlling things with laws, but if you at the same time are saying that there are no universal rights you at the same time must admit that all laws are just made up and have no moral justification.
Who the hell is saying there are no universal rights?
There you go again putting words in our moths.
-
Driving is a privilege, not a right. Owning a firearm is a right, and all rights must be granted to all citizens. All people are created equal.
This is where we disagree. I don't see owning a firearm as a right any more than I see owning a nuke as a right.
To me, saying that a blind person can't own a gun is like having a citizen pass a test before being allowed to vote. Would letting people with who fail vote lead to a decrease in the quality of elections? Even if so, it wouldn't be sufficient reason to deny them their rights. If there are preconditions on who can exercise universal rights, then they aren't universal rights anymore.
Considering the quality of the voting population, I think you are on to something here.
But seriously, owning a gun is not a universal right. You may regard it as a right granted to you in 'merica (fuck yeah) by the constitution, but it is not a universal right.
The way I see it, you also have the right to own a gun. Your system just doesn't acknowledge it. I don't regard it as right granted to me by the Constitution; as I've mentioned, I have the right regardless of what the Constitution says.
Again, that's where we disagree.
I don't see how anything to do with guns is a natural right
Universal rights are things like freedom of belief, pursuit of happiness etc.
Your constitution might recognise the right to bare arms, but it's not a universal right.
You need a natural right that protects all the other ones. You cannot just have faith that living in service to a person or organization is in your best interests. Giving "leaders" a monopoly on violence is just like sucking on the barrel of one of the guns you are so afraid of. Seriously. Sooner or later you WILL be looking down the barrel of a gun if you follow this path, and since the citizens don't have any guns, you know who'd going to be pointing it at you right? Think about it.
-
Universal rights aren't the only kind of rights.
Yes, they are. This is what both you and odeon fail to understand. This is pure logic. The world above quantum level works according to binary logic. It is either 0 or 1, just like a computer. There are either universal rights or no rights at all. It can't be both and it can't be anything else.
Who the hell is saying there are no universal rights?
There you go again putting words in our moths.
You are obviously saying it, since you believe in legislation. If you believe in positive gun laws you don't believe in universal rights. The paradox is that your legislation is just instrumental then and has nothing to do with justice or moral.
-
Universal rights aren't the only kind of rights.
Yes, they are. This is what both you and odeon fail to understand. This is pure logic. The world above quantum level works according to binary logic. It is either 0 or 1, just like a computer. There are either universal rights or no rights at all. It can't be both and it can't be anything else.
Who the hell is saying there are no universal rights?
There you go again putting words in our moths.
You are obviously saying it, since you believe in legislation. If you believe in positive gun laws you don't believe in universal rights. The paradox is that your legislation is just instrumental then and has nothing to do with justice or moral.
Exactly. People don't seem to understand that their beliefs have absolutely no effect on the physical world. Reality is reality. Our governments no longer serve us, so we are in danger. End of story.
-
Adam isn't a philosopher :M
Neither are you. :hahaha:
I am, at least to the degree that I know what I am talking about here. I have studied philosophy at the university.
Did you complete a degree in it (serious question)? I have a friend who did.
-
But seriously, owning a gun is not a universal right. You may regard it as a right granted to you in 'merica (fuck yeah) by the constitution, but it is not a universal right.
There either are universal rights or there are not. If there are no universal rights, you have no rights. No rights. In that case you must accept that the stronger is the one that is right.
Or we can postulate universal rights and don't back off on them a millimeter, like in Spooner's system. That is consistent and will guarantee you that no one infringess on your rights.
Here you also see how absurd legislation is. You are for controlling things with laws, but if you at the same time are saying that there are no universal rights you at the same time must admit that all laws are just made up and have no moral justification.
Logic fail. "No universal laws" does not equal "all laws are made up and have no moral justification".
You should know this, considering your university background, regardless of what your opinions re universal laws are.
-
Driving is a privilege, not a right. Owning a firearm is a right, and all rights must be granted to all citizens. All people are created equal.
This is where we disagree. I don't see owning a firearm as a right any more than I see owning a nuke as a right.
To me, saying that a blind person can't own a gun is like having a citizen pass a test before being allowed to vote. Would letting people with who fail vote lead to a decrease in the quality of elections? Even if so, it wouldn't be sufficient reason to deny them their rights. If there are preconditions on who can exercise universal rights, then they aren't universal rights anymore.
Considering the quality of the voting population, I think you are on to something here.
But seriously, owning a gun is not a universal right. You may regard it as a right granted to you in 'merica (fuck yeah) by the constitution, but it is not a universal right.
The way I see it, you also have the right to own a gun. Your system just doesn't acknowledge it. I don't regard it as right granted to me by the Constitution; as I've mentioned, I have the right regardless of what the Constitution says.
Then we'll have to disagree. I didn't mention our system in this context, though.
-
I can almost smell your contempt for us. Well fuck you too.
Well, you should have your nose checked, then. This is not true. I disagree with you re guns, and disagree strongly, but that's it, in this case.
See, I am perfectly capable of disagreeing with someone without even disliking the person behind the opinion.
I have posted my opinions about your country and its people in this thread and elsewhere, several times. If you think I'm lying you'd better back it up or admit that you were, um, talking out of your nose.
-
Universal rights aren't the only kind of rights.
Yes, they are. This is what both you and odeon fail to understand. This is pure logic. The world above quantum level works according to binary logic. It is either 0 or 1, just like a computer. There are either universal rights or no rights at all. It can't be both and it can't be anything else.
Who the hell is saying there are no universal rights?
There you go again putting words in our moths.
You are obviously saying it, since you believe in legislation. If you believe in positive gun laws you don't believe in universal rights. The paradox is that your legislation is just instrumental then and has nothing to do with justice or moral.
*I* am saying that there are no universal rights. There are no universal obligations either, for that matter.
Your comment re the world above quantum level is quite bizarre, btw.
-
Universal rights aren't the only kind of rights.
Yes, they are. This is what both you and odeon fail to understand. This is pure logic. The world above quantum level works according to binary logic. It is either 0 or 1, just like a computer. There are either universal rights or no rights at all. It can't be both and it can't be anything else.
Who the hell is saying there are no universal rights?
There you go again putting words in our moths.
You are obviously saying it, since you believe in legislation. If you believe in positive gun laws you don't believe in universal rights. The paradox is that your legislation is just instrumental then and has nothing to do with justice or moral.
Exactly. People don't seem to understand that their beliefs have absolutely no effect on the physical world. Reality is reality. Our governments no longer serve us, so we are in danger. End of story.
I wish you'd understand this.
-
So which gunlaw poses the greatest danger to a law-abiding citizen?
The only gun I can think of that poses a threat to me is my oldest, worn out twenty two, which has a worn down firing pin and does not fire consistently.
Obviously I keep it clean as it is a family heirloom which belonged to my grandfather. I am fortunate to own it, but it could be considered a threat, since it is NOT reliable.
If I did not own several more similar rimfire rifles, WHICH ARE PERFECTLY RELIABLE, I would endeavor to repair it.
-
Actually "legally blind" is a matter of legislation and quite clear. The details may differ between your country and mine, but not significantly, as I understand it.
Being "liable" will not help if the damage is already done.
Let's see...in Iowa a few blind people might get guns. They might mistakenly shoot innocent people when firing the guns in self-defence. In Sweden you are not allowed to carry a gun in self-defence at all, which means that an armed criminal or a criminal with a knife or just a physically stronger criminal or a number of criminals might rob, rape, beat and kill you without you being able to defend yourself.
So which gunlaw poses the greatest danger to a law-abiding citizen?
Statistically? Accidental shootings involving firearms in the home.
Counting accidents with guns is dishonest. It is like counting accidents with cars as cases where people are hit by cars on purpose.
And gunlaws are still not to protect you from other citizens, they are to protect the state from you.
Let's allow them to be fighter pilots, too. Plenty of visually impaired people out there should be allowed to realise their dreams, ffs.
:agreed: :indeed:
Review your English usage briefly, then restate this, please.
-
Adam isn't a philosopher :M
Neither are you. :hahaha:
I am, at least to the degree that I know what I am talking about here. I have studied philosophy at the university.
Did you complete a degree in it (serious question)? I have a friend who did.
No, I didn't, but I understand the basic logical facts. That's what's important. Many people who have never studied philosophy at all don't understand certain things because they are still in "everyday thinking".
-
But seriously, owning a gun is not a universal right. You may regard it as a right granted to you in 'merica (fuck yeah) by the constitution, but it is not a universal right.
There either are universal rights or there are not. If there are no universal rights, you have no rights. No rights. In that case you must accept that the stronger is the one that is right.
Or we can postulate universal rights and don't back off on them a millimeter, like in Spooner's system. That is consistent and will guarantee you that no one infringess on your rights.
Here you also see how absurd legislation is. You are for controlling things with laws, but if you at the same time are saying that there are no universal rights you at the same time must admit that all laws are just made up and have no moral justification.
Logic fail. "No universal laws" does not equal "all laws are made up and have no moral justification".
You should know this, considering your university background, regardless of what your opinions re universal laws are.
You are thinking about false dicotomies here. That is not the case. In this case it is thus: the world above quantum level literally functions so that something either is or is not.
I said that you must either postulate universal laws or accept that there are no universal laws and subsequently accept that you have no rights at all, but you don't seem willingly to do this.
It's not about opinions, it is either so that universal laws exist or they do not.
That is by the way what Spooner's Natural Law is about, so you either didn't read it or didn't understand it. Universal law/natural law is the same thing. It means that rights exist as an entity. I personally don't believe in that they exist as an entity, but I postulate that they do. It is necessary to postulate that natural rights exist if you believe in rights at all.
-
Universal rights aren't the only kind of rights.
Yes, they are. This is what both you and odeon fail to understand. This is pure logic. The world above quantum level works according to binary logic. It is either 0 or 1, just like a computer. There are either universal rights or no rights at all. It can't be both and it can't be anything else.
Who the hell is saying there are no universal rights?
There you go again putting words in our moths.
You are obviously saying it, since you believe in legislation. If you believe in positive gun laws you don't believe in universal rights. The paradox is that your legislation is just instrumental then and has nothing to do with justice or moral.
*I* am saying that there are no universal rights. There are no universal obligations either, for that matter.
Your comment re the world above quantum level is quite bizarre, btw.
OK, there are no universal rights. Then there are no rights at all. There is no right to live, no right to be healthy, no right to have an income etc etc etc.
This is pure logic, as I said. Why I mention quantum level is because on quantum level the logic doesn't have to be binary. But above that it has to.
-
Universal rights aren't the only kind of rights.
Yes, they are. This is what both you and odeon fail to understand. This is pure logic. The world above quantum level works according to binary logic. It is either 0 or 1, just like a computer. There are either universal rights or no rights at all. It can't be both and it can't be anything else.
Who the hell is saying there are no universal rights?
There you go again putting words in our moths.
You are obviously saying it, since you believe in legislation. If you believe in positive gun laws you don't believe in universal rights. The paradox is that your legislation is just instrumental then and has nothing to do with justice or moral.
Exactly. People don't seem to understand that their beliefs have absolutely no effect on the physical world. Reality is reality. Our governments no longer serve us, so we are in danger. End of story.
I wish you'd understand this.
I wish that everyone would understand it. Although the likeliness for that it would happen at all isn't great you are helpless against an armed burglar without a gun. And if you happen to have a gun and defend yourself successfully with it, the court might send you to prison for it, even if the gun is perfectly legal, because the cunts in court don't care about the fact that you were attacked to begin with.
That is a fact that you really can't argue against at all. You can't legally defend yourself with a gun in Sweden outside your own property, and even in your own bedroom you can't be sure that you might defend yourself and not be punished for it, because your right to defend yourself ("right" according to the law that is) isn't guaranteed even in your own home. In some peculiar way the Swedish legislators think that a criminal's life should be as sacred as yours, even when he attacks you in your own bedroom in the middle of the night. And it is ridiculously hard to legally get a gun to start with, except a rifle.
Is this the way you think it should be?
-
Universal rights aren't the only kind of rights.
Yes, they are. This is what both you and odeon fail to understand. This is pure logic. The world above quantum level works according to binary logic. It is either 0 or 1, just like a computer. There are either universal rights or no rights at all. It can't be both and it can't be anything else.
Who the hell is saying there are no universal rights?
There you go again putting words in our moths.
You are obviously saying it, since you believe in legislation. If you believe in positive gun laws you don't believe in universal rights. The paradox is that your legislation is just instrumental then and has nothing to do with justice or moral.
*I* am saying that there are no universal rights. There are no universal obligations either, for that matter.
Your comment re the world above quantum level is quite bizarre, btw.
Yes, there are universal rights. Doesn't everyone have a right to not be enslaved? Doesn't everyone have a right to life? If not, who doesn't have these rights?
Do you believe that all people are created equal? If so, then why does this not lead to the premise that all people have certain rights by virtue of being people?
-
If he doesn't at least admit that universal rights must be postulated he paradoxically says that he doesn't have any rights himself.
It doesn't matter if you are a materialist to 100%. You must postulate universal rights or accept that you don't have any rights.
-
"THE SCIENCE OF JUSTICE (CONTINUED)
Section I.
If justice be not a natural principle, it is no principle at all. If it be not a natural principle, there is no such thing as justice. If it be not a natural principle, all that men have ever said or written about it, from time immemorial, has been said and written about that which had no existence. If it be not a natural principle, all the appeals for justice that have ever been heard, and all the struggles for justice that have ever been witnessed, have been appeals and struggles for a mere fantasy, a vagary of the imagination, and not for a reality.
If justice be not a natural principle, then there is no such thing as injustice; and all the crimes of which the world has been the scene, have been no crimes at all; but only simple events, like the falling of the rain, or the setting of the sun; events of which the victims had no more reason to complain than they had to complain of the running of the streams, or the growth of vegetation.
If justice be not a natural principle, governments (so-called) have no more right or reason to take cognizance of it, or to pretend or profess to take cognizance of it, than they have to take cognizance, or to pretend or profess to take cognizance, of any other nonentity; and all their professions of establishing justice, or of maintaining justice, or of rewarding justice, are simply the mere gibberish of fools, or the frauds of imposters.
But if justice be a natural principle, then it is necessarily an immutable one; and can no more be changed --- by any power inferior to that which established it --- than can the law of gravitation, the laws of light, the principles of mathematics, or any other natural law or principle whatever; and all attempts or assumptions, on the part of any man or body of men --- whether calling themselves governments, or by any other name --- to set up their [*12] own commands, wills, pleasure, or discretion, in the place of justice, as a rule of conduct for any human being, are as much an absurdity, an usurpation, and a tyranny, as would be their attempts to set up their own commands, wills, pleasure, or discretion in the place of any and all the physical, mental, and moral laws of the universe.
Section II.
If there be any such principle as justice, it is, of necessity, a natural principle; and, as such, it is a matter of science, to be learned and applied like any other science. And to talk of either adding to, or taking from, it, by legislation, is just as false, absurd, and ridiculous as it would be to talk of adding to, or taking from, mathematics, chemistry, or any other science, by legislation.
Section III.
If there be in nature such a principle as justice, nothing can be added to, or taken from, its supreme authority by all the legislation of which the entire human race united are capable. And all the attempts of the human race, or of any portion of it, to add to, or take from, the supreme authority of justice, in any case whatever, is of no more obligation upon any single human being than is the idle wind.
Section IV.
If there be such a principle as justice, or natural law, it is the principle, or law, that tells us what rights were given to every human being at his birth; what rights are, therefore, inherent in him as a human being, necessarily remain with him during life; and, however capable of being trampled upon, are incapable of being blotted out, extinguished, annihilated, or separated or eliminated from his nature as a human being, or deprived of their inherent authority or obligation.[*13]
On the other hand, if there be no such principle as justice, or natural law, then every human being came into the world utterly destitute of rights; and coming into the world destitute of rights, he must necessarily forever remain so. For if no one brings any rights with him into the world, clearly no one can ever have any rights of his own, or give any to another. And the consequence would be that mankind could never have any rights; and for them to talk of any such things as their rights, would be to talk of things that never had, never will have, and never can have any existence.
Section V.
If there be such a natural principle as justice, it is necessarily the highest, and consequently the only and universal, law for all those matters to which it is naturally applicable. And, consequently, all human legislation is simply and always an assumption of authority and dominion, where no right of authority or dominion exists. It is, therefore, simply and always an intrusion, an absurdity, an usurpation, and a crime.
On the other hand, if there be no such natural principle as justice, there can be no such thing as dishonesty; and no possible act of either force or fraud, committed by one man against the person or property of another, can be said to be unjust or dishonest; or be complained of, or prohibited, or punished as such. In short, if there be no such principle as justice, there can be no such acts as crimes; and all the professions of governments, so called, that they exist, either in whole or in part, for the punishment or prevention of crimes, are professions that they exist for the punishment or prevention of what never existed, nor ever can exist. Such professions are therefore confessions that, so far as crimes are concerned, governments have no occasion to exist; that there is nothing for them to do, and that there is nothing that they can do. They are confessions that the governments exist for the punishment and prevention of acts that are, in their nature, simple impossibilities.[*14]
Section VI.
If there be in nature such a principle as justice, such a principle as honesty, such principles as we describe by the words mine and thine, such principles as men's natural rights of person and property, then we have an immutable and universal law; a law that we can learn, as we learn any other science; a law that tells us what is just and what is unjust, what is honest and what is dishonest, what things are mine and what things are thine, what are my rights of person and property and what are your rights of person and property, and where is the boundary between each and all of my rights of person and property and each and all of your rights of person and property. And this law is the paramount law, and the same law, over all the world, at all times, and for all peoples; and will be the same paramount and only law, at all times, and for all peoples, so long as man shall live upon the earth.
But if, on the other hand, there be in nature no such principle as justice, no such principle as honesty, no such principle as men's natural rights of person or property, then all such words as justice and injustice, honesty and dishonesty, all such words as mine and thine, all words that signify that one thing is one man's property and that another thing is another man's property, all words that are used to describe men's natural rights of person or property, all such words as are used to describe injuries and crimes, should be struck out of all human languages as having no meanings; and it should be declared, at once and forever, that the greatest force and the greatest frauds, for the time being, are the supreme and only laws for governing the relations of men with each other; and that, from henceforth, all persons and combinations of persons --- those that call themselves governments, as well as all others --- are to be left free to practice upon each other all the force, and all the fraud, of which they are capable.[*15]
Section VII.
If there be no such science as justice, there can be no science of government; and all the rapacity and violence, by which, in all ages and nations, a few confederated villains have obtained the mastery over the rest of mankind, reduced them to poverty and slavery, and established what they called governments to keep them in subjection, have been as legitimate examples of government as any that the world is ever to see.
Section VIII.
If there be in nature such a principle as justice, it is necessarily the only political principle there ever was, or ever will be. All the other so-called political principles, which men are in the habit of inventing, are not principles at all. They are either the mere conceits of simpletons, who imagine they have discovered something better than truth, and justice, and universal law; or they are mere devices and pretences, to which selfish and knavish men resort as means to get fame, and power, and money.[*16]"
-
"CHAPTER III.
NATURAL LAW CONSTRASTED WITH
LEGISLATION.
Section I.
Natural law, natural justice, being a principle that is naturally applicable and adequate to the rightful settlement of every possible controversy that can arise among men; being too, the only standard by which any controversy whatever, between man and man, can be rightfully settled; being a principle whose protection every man demands for himself, whether he is willing to accord it to others, or not; being also an immutable principle, one that is always and everywhere the same, in all ages and nations; being self-evidently necessary in all times and places; being so entirely impartial and equitable towards all; so indispensable to the peace of mankind everywhere; so vital to the safety and welfare of every human being; being, too, so easily learned, so generally known, and so easily maintained by such voluntary associations as all honest men can readily and rightully form for that purpose --- being such a principle as this, these questions arise, viz.: Why is it that it does not universally, or well nigh universally, prevail? Why is it that it has not, ages ago, been established throughout the world as the one only law that any man, or all men, could rightfully be compelled to obey? Why is it that any human being ever conceived that anything so self-evidently superfluous, false, absurd, and atrocious as all legislation necessarily must be, could be of any use to mankind, or have any place in human affairs?
Section II.
The answer is, that through all historic times, wherever any people have advanced beyond the savage state, and have learned to increase their means of sub-sistence by the cultivation of soil, a greater or less number of them have associated and organized themselves as robbers, to plunder and enslave all others, [*17] who had either accumulated any property that could be seized, or had shown, by their labor, that they could be made to contribute to the support or pleasure of those who should enslave them.
These bands of robbers, small in number at first, have increased their power by uniting with each other, inventing warlike weapons, disciplining themselves, and perfecting their organizations as military forces, and dividing their plunder (including their captives) among themselves, either in such proportions as have been previously agreed on, or in such as their leaders (always desirous to increase the number of their followers) should prescribe.
The success of these bands of robbers was an easy thing, for the reason that those whom they plundered and enslaved were comparatively defenceless; being scattered thinly over the country; engaged wholly in trying, by rude implements and heavy labor, to extort a subsistence from the soil; having no weapons of war, other than sticks and stones; having no military discipline or organization, and no means of concentrating their forces, or acting in concert, when suddenly attacked. Under these circumstances, the only alternative left them for saving even their lives, or the lives of their families, was to yield up not only the crops they had gathered, and the lands they had cultivated, but themselves and their families also as slaves.
Thenceforth their fate was, as slaves, to cultivate for others the lands they had before cultivated for themselves. Being driven constantly to their labor, wealth slowly increased; but all went into the hands of their tyrants.
These tyrants, living solely on plunder, and on the labor of their slaves, and applying all their energies to the seizure of still more plunder, and the enslavement of still other defenceless persons; increasing, too, their numbers, perfecting their organizations, and multiplying their weapons of war, they extend their conquests until, in order to hold what they have already got, it becomes necessary for them to act systematically, and cooperate with each other in holding their slaves in subjection.
But all this they can do only by establishing what they call a government, and making what they call laws.[*18]
All the great governments of the world --- those now existing, as well as those that have passed away --- have been of this character. They have been mere bands of robbers, who have associated for purposes of plunder, conquest, and the enslavement of their fellow men. And their laws, as they have called them, have been only such agreements as they have found it necessary to enter into, in order to maintain their organizations, and act together in plundering and enslaving others, and in securing to each his agreed share of the spoils.
All these laws have had no more real obligation than have the agreements which brigands, bandits, and pirates find it necessary to enter into with each other, for the more successful accomplishment of their crimes, and the more peaceable division of their spoils.
Thus substantially all the legislation of the world has had its origin in the desires of one class --- of persons to plunder and enslave others, and hold them as property.
Section III.
In process of time, the robber, or slaveholding, class --- who had seized all the lands, and held all the means of creating wealth --- began to discover that the easiest mode of managing their slaves, and making them profitable, was not for each slaveholder to hold his specified number of slaves, as he had done before, and as he would hold so many cattle, but to give them so much liberty as would throw upon themselves (the slaves) the responsibility of their own subsistence, and yet compel them to sell their labor to the land-hodling class --- their former owners --- for just what the latter might choose to give them.
Of course, these liberated slaves, as some have erroneously called them, having no lands, or other property, and no means of obtaining an independent subsistence, had no alternative --- to save themselves from starvation --- but to sell their labor to the landholders, in exchange only for the coarsest necessaries of life; not always for so much even as that.[*19]
These liberated slaves, as they were called, were now scarcely less slaves than they were before. Their means of subsistence were perhaps even more precarious than when each had his own owner, who had an interest to preserve his life. They were liable, at the caprice or interest of the landholders, to be thrown out of home, employment, and the opportunity of even earning a subsistence by their labor. They were, therefore, in large numbers, driven to the necessity of begging, stealing, or starving; and became, of course, dangerous to the property and quiet of their late masters.
The consequence was, that these late owners found it necessary, for their own safety and the safety of their property, to organize themselves more perfectly as a government and make laws for keeping these dangerous people in subjection; that is, laws fixing the prices at which they should be compelled to labor, and also prescribing fearful punishments, even death itself, for such thefts and tresspasses as they were driven to commit, as their only means of saving them-selves from starvation.
These laws have continued in force for hundreds, and, in some countries, for thousands of years; and are in force to-day, in greater or less everity, in nearly all the countries on the globe.
The purpose and effect of these laws have been to maintain, in the hands of the robber, or slave holding class, a monopoly of all lands, and, as far as possible, of all other means of creating wealth; and thus to keep the great body of laborers in such a state of poverty and dependence, as would compel them to sell their labor to their tyrants for the lowest prices at which life could be sustained.
The result of all this is, that the little wealth there is in the world is all in the hands of a few --- that is, in the hands of the law-making, slave-holding class; who are now as much slaveholders in spirit as they ever were, but who accomplish their purposes by means of the laws they make for keeping the laborers in subjection and dependence, instead of each one's owning his individual slaves as so many chattels.[*20]
Thus the whole business of legislation, which has now grown to such gigantic proportions, had its origin in the conspiracies, which have always existed among the few, for the purpose of holding the many in subjection, and extorting from them their labor, and all the profits of their labor.
And the real motives and spirit which lie at the foundation of all legislation --- notwithstanding all the pretences and disguises by which they attempt to hide themselves --- are the same to-day as they always have been. They whole purpose of this legislation is simply to keep one class of men in subordination and servitude to another.
Section IV.
What, then, is legislation? It is an assumption by one man, or body of men, of absolute, irresponsible dominion over all other men whom they call subject to their power. It is the assumption by one man, or body of men, of a right to subject all other men to their will and their service. It is the assumption by one man, or body of men, of a right to abolish outright all the natural rights, all the natural liberty of all other men; to make all other men their slaves; to arbitrarily dictate to all other men what they may, and may not, do; what they may, and may not, have; what they may, and may not, be. It is, in short, the assumption of a right to banish the principle of human rights, the principle of justice itself, from off the earth, and set up their own personal will, pleasure, and interest in its place. All this, and nothing less, is involved in the very idea that there can be any such thing as human legislation that is obligatory upon those upon whom it is imposed.
NOTES
Sir William Jones, an English judge in India, and one of the most learned judges that ever lived, learned in Asiatic as well as European law, says: 'It is pleasing to remark the similarity, or, rather, the idenity, of those conclusions which pure, unbiased reason, in all ages and nations, seldom fails to draw, in such juridical inquiries as are not fettered and manacled by positive institutions.' --- Jones on Bailments, 133.
He means here to say that, when no law has been made in violation of justice, judicial tribunals, 'in all ages and nations,' have 'seldom' failed to agree as to what justice is."
-
This should be especially highlighted:
What, then, is legislation? It is an assumption by one man, or body of men, of absolute, irresponsible dominion over all other men whom they call subject to their power. It is the assumption by one man, or body of men, of a right to subject all other men to their will and their service. It is the assumption by one man, or body of men, of a right to abolish outright all the natural rights, all the natural liberty of all other men; to make all other men their slaves; to arbitrarily dictate to all other men what they may, and may not, do; what they may, and may not, have; what they may, and may not, be. It is, in short, the assumption of a right to banish the principle of human rights, the principle of justice itself, from off the earth, and set up their own personal will, pleasure, and interest in its place. All this, and nothing less, is involved in the very idea that there can be any such thing as human legislation that is obligatory upon those upon whom it is imposed.
This is what legislation is really about. Denying you your real rights.
-
Universal rights aren't the only kind of rights.
Yes, they are. This is what both you and odeon fail to understand. This is pure logic. The world above quantum level works according to binary logic. It is either 0 or 1, just like a computer. There are either universal rights or no rights at all. It can't be both and it can't be anything else.
Who the hell is saying there are no universal rights?
There you go again putting words in our moths.
You are obviously saying it, since you believe in legislation. If you believe in positive gun laws you don't believe in universal rights. The paradox is that your legislation is just instrumental then and has nothing to do with justice or moral.
Exactly. People don't seem to understand that their beliefs have absolutely no effect on the physical world. Reality is reality. Our governments no longer serve us, so we are in danger. End of story.
I wish you'd understand this.
I do, which is why its obvious to me that giving government a monopoly on violence is suicide.
-
Universal rights aren't the only kind of rights.
Yes, they are. This is what both you and odeon fail to understand. This is pure logic. The world above quantum level works according to binary logic. It is either 0 or 1, just like a computer. There are either universal rights or no rights at all. It can't be both and it can't be anything else.
Who the hell is saying there are no universal rights?
There you go again putting words in our moths.
You are obviously saying it, since you believe in legislation. If you believe in positive gun laws you don't believe in universal rights. The paradox is that your legislation is just instrumental then and has nothing to do with justice or moral.
Exactly. People don't seem to understand that their beliefs have absolutely no effect on the physical world. Reality is reality. Our governments no longer serve us, so we are in danger. End of story.
I wish you'd understand this.
I wish that everyone would understand it. Although the likeliness for that it would happen at all isn't great you are helpless against an armed burglar without a gun. And if you happen to have a gun and defend yourself successfully with it, the court might send you to prison for it, even if the gun is perfectly legal, because the cunts in court don't care about the fact that you were attacked to begin with.
That is a fact that you really can't argue against at all. You can't legally defend yourself with a gun in Sweden outside your own property, and even in your own bedroom you can't be sure that you might defend yourself and not be punished for it, because your right to defend yourself ("right" according to the law that is) isn't guaranteed even in your own home. In some peculiar way the Swedish legislators think that a criminal's life should be as sacred as yours, even when he attacks you in your own bedroom in the middle of the night. And it is ridiculously hard to legally get a gun to start with, except a rifle.
Is this the way you think it should be?
Well I sure as fuck don't. That really is the direction things are going in, and its fucking retarded.
-
Salò is actually the perfect metaphor for society - not just for the consumerist society, as Pasolini intended it to be, but for all etatistic societies: we are forced at gunpoint to get raped and eat shit from fascistic psychopaths just for their pleasure.
Risus abundat in ore stultorum (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nk2LLHFGef0#)
-
I disagree with odeon about universal rights.
I don't think the right to guns is one of them though.
Universal rights imo are things like freedom of belief, freedom from slavery
Funny how different we are. People over here are more likely to see free health care as a right. And in fact, I do
-
Adam isn't a philosopher :M
Neither are you. :hahaha:
I am, at least to the degree that I know what I am talking about here. I have studied philosophy at the university.
Did you complete a degree in it (serious question)? I have a friend who did.
No, I didn't, but I understand the basic logical facts. That's what's important. Many people who have never studied philosophy at all don't understand certain things because they are still in "everyday thinking".
Lol, so you use "I studied philosophy" at university as your reason for claiming youre a philosopher, but it turns out you didn't even complete a degree in it?
I'm just as much a philosopher as you then.
Should have known you were talking shit anyway. Generally, when someone refers to themselves as "a philosopher," they ARE talking bullshit
-
I disagree with odeon about universal rights.
I don't think the right to guns is one of them though.
Universal rights imo are things like freedom of belief, freedom from slavery
Funny how different we are. People over here are more likely to see free health care as a right. And in fact, I do
You won't have those two freedoms though, unless you have weapons to kill tyrants who will try and take them from you. Including but not limited to guns. I'm sorry. I know its not a very feel good thing to admit or accept, but I don't see any way around it. I think that's just reality.
-
I disagree with odeon about universal rights.
I don't think the right to guns is one of them though.
Universal rights imo are things like freedom of belief, freedom from slavery
Funny how different we are. People over here are more likely to see free health care as a right. And in fact, I do
Wrong again. The universal rights can't be limited by anything else than other people's rights. Owning a gun doesn't infringe on someone elses rights. Free health care does, however, unless everyone actively gave their consent to such a system.
-
Adam isn't a philosopher :M
Neither are you. :hahaha:
I am, at least to the degree that I know what I am talking about here. I have studied philosophy at the university.
Did you complete a degree in it (serious question)? I have a friend who did.
No, I didn't, but I understand the basic logical facts. That's what's important. Many people who have never studied philosophy at all don't understand certain things because they are still in "everyday thinking".
Lol, so you use "I studied philosophy" at university as your reason for claiming youre a philosopher, but it turns out you didn't even complete a degree in it?
I'm just as much a philosopher as you then.
Should have known you were talking shit anyway. Generally, when someone refers to themselves as "a philosopher," they ARE talking bullshit
You're actually not necessarily a philosopher for having a degree in it, but often you need some philosophy education to get rid of your "everyday thinking".
-
I disagree with odeon about universal rights.
I don't think the right to guns is one of them though.
Universal rights imo are things like freedom of belief, freedom from slavery
Funny how different we are. People over here are more likely to see free health care as a right. And in fact, I do
You won't have those two freedoms though, unless you have weapons to kill tyrants who will try and take them from you. Including but not limited to guns. I'm sorry. I know its not a very feel good thing to admit or accept, but I don't see any way around it. I think that's just reality.
It's not about feel-good whatever.
I disagree with you, but not for that reason.
And we do have those rights. I still do not see how us having guns is the only way of ensuring we keep them. What's better about the US?
-
I disagree with odeon about universal rights.
I don't think the right to guns is one of them though.
Universal rights imo are things like freedom of belief, freedom from slavery
Funny how different we are. People over here are more likely to see free health care as a right. And in fact, I do
You won't have those two freedoms though, unless you have weapons to kill tyrants who will try and take them from you. Including but not limited to guns. I'm sorry. I know its not a very feel good thing to admit or accept, but I don't see any way around it. I think that's just reality.
It's not about feel-good whatever.
I disagree with you, but not for that reason.
And we do have those rights. I still do not see how us having guns is the only way of ensuring we keep them. What's better about the US?
Would you say you live in a free country? Also, how much do you love your family?
-
I disagree with odeon about universal rights.
I don't think the right to guns is one of them though.
Universal rights imo are things like freedom of belief, freedom from slavery
Funny how different we are. People over here are more likely to see free health care as a right. And in fact, I do
You won't have those two freedoms though, unless you have weapons to kill tyrants who will try and take them from you. Including but not limited to guns. I'm sorry. I know its not a very feel good thing to admit or accept, but I don't see any way around it. I think that's just reality.
It's not about feel-good whatever.
I disagree with you, but not for that reason.
And we do have those rights. I still do not see how us having guns is the only way of ensuring we keep them. What's better about the US?
How would you start a guerilla war against the British government?
-
::) ^
Rage - pretty much, yeah. There are things we need to fight (ie internet laws), but compared to most parts of the world, yeah. And definitely just as free as you guys are.
I'm not saying it's perfect, far from it. And like I said - there are laws I don't like. Having guns wouldn't change that though, and isn't the best way to fight it.
-
btw what's going on with this latest shooting in Washington? Anyone know what that's about?
-
Read the texts from Spooner that I posted earlier instead.
-
::) ^
Rage - pretty much, yeah. There are things we need to fight (ie internet laws), but compared to most parts of the world, yeah. And definitely just as free as you guys are.
I'm not saying it's perfect, far from it. And like I said - there are laws I don't like. Having guns wouldn't change that though, and isn't the best way to fight it.
Ok. And would you say that your government works for the citizen, or another interest?
-
I disagree with odeon about universal rights.
I don't think the right to guns is one of them though.
Universal rights imo are things like freedom of belief, freedom from slavery
Funny how different we are. People over here are more likely to see free health care as a right. And in fact, I do
I know we've discussed this before, but it's not "free".
btw what's going on with this latest shooting in Washington? Anyone know what that's about?
I hear different stories; you can read the same news. Some people here that I've heard from are actively disappointed that no legislators were shot. :laugh: :hahaha:
I disagree with odeon about universal rights.
I don't think the right to guns is one of them though.
Universal rights imo are things like freedom of belief, freedom from slavery
Funny how different we are. People over here are more likely to see free health care as a right. And in fact, I do
You won't have those two freedoms though, unless you have weapons to kill tyrants who will try and take them from you. Including but not limited to guns. I'm sorry. I know its not a very feel good thing to admit or accept, but I don't see any way around it. I think that's just reality.
It's not about feel-good whatever.
I disagree with you, but not for that reason.
And we do have those rights. I still do not see how us having guns is the only way of ensuring we keep them. What's better about the US?
Better? The US system of government better represents the will of Americans than the British system would. Does that count as "better"?
One problem with your system is that you have to rely on the government to protect you from small problems (like crime) as well as big problems (like invasion). What would you do if the police aren't there when you need them? Or what if the government decided to institute tyrannical measures?
Ultimately, the question is what you would do if the government didn't do what it's supposed to do.
-
Now, Adam and odeon, be good boys and read Spooner and understand him. Then you too will be enlightened anarchists :M
-
btw what's going on with this latest shooting in Washington? Anyone know what that's about?
Same as all the others. A guy lost his mind, went to a gun free zone, and shot as many people as he could. Apparently he left a note talking about being able to hear secret messages via "low frequency radio waves".
Interesting part, piers morgan and many mainstream media companies reported the killings were done with an AR15, and ASSAULT RIFLE was spammed and spammed for about a week. Suddenly they looked like fucking fools when word got out it was actually a turkey hunting gun. Remington 870 shotgun. I have one of those myself, actually. Its a sport gun.
I personally think that some questions about that haven't been answered. Most prominent being: Even with light security, how could a guy just waltz on to a historic military post with a large shotgun and thirty shotgun shells? Why did it take so long for law enforcement to respond, resulting in 12 people killed? Why did they receive an order to stand down?
And what about that part that was briefly mentioned early on about him possibly having an accomplice? They even described the guy who they thought was helping him! This was only briefly mentioned, then it disappeared. :orly:
-
Breivik killed 70 people with just a pistol and a hunting rifle. They were unarmed, of course.
-
But seriously, owning a gun is not a universal right. You may regard it as a right granted to you in 'merica (fuck yeah) by the constitution, but it is not a universal right.
There either are universal rights or there are not. If there are no universal rights, you have no rights. No rights. In that case you must accept that the stronger is the one that is right.
Or we can postulate universal rights and don't back off on them a millimeter, like in Spooner's system. That is consistent and will guarantee you that no one infringess on your rights.
Here you also see how absurd legislation is. You are for controlling things with laws, but if you at the same time are saying that there are no universal rights you at the same time must admit that all laws are just made up and have no moral justification.
Logic fail. "No universal laws" does not equal "all laws are made up and have no moral justification".
You should know this, considering your university background, regardless of what your opinions re universal laws are.
You are thinking about false dicotomies here. That is not the case. In this case it is thus: the world above quantum level literally functions so that something either is or is not.
I said that you must either postulate universal laws or accept that there are no universal laws and subsequently accept that you have no rights at all, but you don't seem willingly to do this.
It's not about opinions, it is either so that universal laws exist or they do not.
That is by the way what Spooner's Natural Law is about, so you either didn't read it or didn't understand it. Universal law/natural law is the same thing. It means that rights exist as an entity. I personally don't believe in that they exist as an entity, but I postulate that they do. It is necessary to postulate that natural rights exist if you believe in rights at all.
You misread. Try again, read what I wrote, up there.
As for the above quantum level bs, sorry, but no.
-
Universal rights aren't the only kind of rights.
Yes, they are. This is what both you and odeon fail to understand. This is pure logic. The world above quantum level works according to binary logic. It is either 0 or 1, just like a computer. There are either universal rights or no rights at all. It can't be both and it can't be anything else.
Who the hell is saying there are no universal rights?
There you go again putting words in our moths.
You are obviously saying it, since you believe in legislation. If you believe in positive gun laws you don't believe in universal rights. The paradox is that your legislation is just instrumental then and has nothing to do with justice or moral.
*I* am saying that there are no universal rights. There are no universal obligations either, for that matter.
Your comment re the world above quantum level is quite bizarre, btw.
OK, there are no universal rights. Then there are no rights at all. There is no right to live, no right to be healthy, no right to have an income etc etc etc.
This is pure logic, as I said. Why I mention quantum level is because on quantum level the logic doesn't have to be binary. But above that it has to.
Actually, not even close. I know structuralists argue from a binary POV but it doesn't mean they are right. Binary opposition is certainly not the only way to approach a philosophical discussion.
We might, for example, discuss modern gender theory.
-
Universal rights aren't the only kind of rights.
Yes, they are. This is what both you and odeon fail to understand. This is pure logic. The world above quantum level works according to binary logic. It is either 0 or 1, just like a computer. There are either universal rights or no rights at all. It can't be both and it can't be anything else.
Who the hell is saying there are no universal rights?
There you go again putting words in our moths.
You are obviously saying it, since you believe in legislation. If you believe in positive gun laws you don't believe in universal rights. The paradox is that your legislation is just instrumental then and has nothing to do with justice or moral.
Exactly. People don't seem to understand that their beliefs have absolutely no effect on the physical world. Reality is reality. Our governments no longer serve us, so we are in danger. End of story.
I wish you'd understand this.
I wish that everyone would understand it. Although the likeliness for that it would happen at all isn't great you are helpless against an armed burglar without a gun. And if you happen to have a gun and defend yourself successfully with it, the court might send you to prison for it, even if the gun is perfectly legal, because the cunts in court don't care about the fact that you were attacked to begin with.
That is a fact that you really can't argue against at all. You can't legally defend yourself with a gun in Sweden outside your own property, and even in your own bedroom you can't be sure that you might defend yourself and not be punished for it, because your right to defend yourself ("right" according to the law that is) isn't guaranteed even in your own home. In some peculiar way the Swedish legislators think that a criminal's life should be as sacred as yours, even when he attacks you in your own bedroom in the middle of the night. And it is ridiculously hard to legally get a gun to start with, except a rifle.
Is this the way you think it should be?
You keep presenting your opinions and beliefs as if they were facts. This is going nowhere.
-
Universal rights aren't the only kind of rights.
Yes, they are. This is what both you and odeon fail to understand. This is pure logic. The world above quantum level works according to binary logic. It is either 0 or 1, just like a computer. There are either universal rights or no rights at all. It can't be both and it can't be anything else.
Who the hell is saying there are no universal rights?
There you go again putting words in our moths.
You are obviously saying it, since you believe in legislation. If you believe in positive gun laws you don't believe in universal rights. The paradox is that your legislation is just instrumental then and has nothing to do with justice or moral.
*I* am saying that there are no universal rights. There are no universal obligations either, for that matter.
Your comment re the world above quantum level is quite bizarre, btw.
Yes, there are universal rights. Doesn't everyone have a right to not be enslaved? Doesn't everyone have a right to life? If not, who doesn't have these rights?
Do you believe that all people are created equal? If so, then why does this not lead to the premise that all people have certain rights by virtue of being people?
No, and no.
They probably should be, at least in the world we live in, but there are plenty of places where none of it is true, which means none of your "rights" is "universal".
You are confusing what you want with what actually is.
Note that I'm not arguing against the concept, just its current applicability. It also amuses me to think that someone would somehow put "carrying a firearm" next to "born equal". I know the former is thought to be a prerequisite for the other in the US, but that's not how the whole world sees it, thus immediately nullifying the "universal" part.
-
If he doesn't at least admit that universal rights must be postulated he paradoxically says that he doesn't have any rights himself.
It doesn't matter if you are a materialist to 100%. You must postulate universal rights or accept that you don't have any rights.
No *universal* rights.
-
I disagree with odeon about universal rights.
I don't think the right to guns is one of them though.
Universal rights imo are things like freedom of belief, freedom from slavery
Funny how different we are. People over here are more likely to see free health care as a right. And in fact, I do
I'd tend to agree with you re health care. Not as something universal, though, but that's me arguing semantics, which you probably understand (and they do not).
-
Now, Adam and odeon, be good boys and read Spooner and understand him. Then you too will be enlightened anarchists :M
There's an oxymoron. :zoinks:
-
Oh, and btw. Piers fucking Morgan is not an argument. Just sayin'.
-
Seriously, you don't understand. Either universal/natural laws exist or they do not exist.
Since you don't understand that binary logics just exist above quantum level
If you that they don't exist you must (to be intellectually honest anyway) also admit that you don't have any rights.
In the quoted Spooner texts he also perfectly explains this and also tells you that legislation is there to take your rights away from you, so that the oppressors can have their ways with you.
In the light of the faked "war against terror", the NSA shit etc etc etc it's incredible that you don't understand that the state doesn't protect against wrongs but creates and upholds them to keep the powerful psychopaths powerful.
I think you know this very well but can't stand the thought of it.
-
Universal rights aren't the only kind of rights.
Yes, they are. This is what both you and odeon fail to understand. This is pure logic. The world above quantum level works according to binary logic. It is either 0 or 1, just like a computer. There are either universal rights or no rights at all. It can't be both and it can't be anything else.
Who the hell is saying there are no universal rights?
There you go again putting words in our moths.
You are obviously saying it, since you believe in legislation. If you believe in positive gun laws you don't believe in universal rights. The paradox is that your legislation is just instrumental then and has nothing to do with justice or moral.
Exactly. People don't seem to understand that their beliefs have absolutely no effect on the physical world. Reality is reality. Our governments no longer serve us, so we are in danger. End of story.
I wish you'd understand this.
I wish that everyone would understand it. Although the likeliness for that it would happen at all isn't great you are helpless against an armed burglar without a gun. And if you happen to have a gun and defend yourself successfully with it, the court might send you to prison for it, even if the gun is perfectly legal, because the cunts in court don't care about the fact that you were attacked to begin with.
That is a fact that you really can't argue against at all. You can't legally defend yourself with a gun in Sweden outside your own property, and even in your own bedroom you can't be sure that you might defend yourself and not be punished for it, because your right to defend yourself ("right" according to the law that is) isn't guaranteed even in your own home. In some peculiar way the Swedish legislators think that a criminal's life should be as sacred as yours, even when he attacks you in your own bedroom in the middle of the night. And it is ridiculously hard to legally get a gun to start with, except a rifle.
Is this the way you think it should be?
You keep presenting your opinions and beliefs as if they were facts. This is going nowhere.
Except for the last sentence that is not an opinion but a fact. That is how the Swedish gun law and law about self-defence function in practice, which you are very well aware of. The Rödeby case was exceptional in the respect that a victim who defended himself and killed one aggressor and hurt another very seriously actually didn't go to jail. Usually he would have done that.
In Texas or Colorado he wouldn't even have been prosecuted. That is also a fact.
-
Universal rights aren't the only kind of rights.
Yes, they are. This is what both you and odeon fail to understand. This is pure logic. The world above quantum level works according to binary logic. It is either 0 or 1, just like a computer. There are either universal rights or no rights at all. It can't be both and it can't be anything else.
Who the hell is saying there are no universal rights?
There you go again putting words in our moths.
You are obviously saying it, since you believe in legislation. If you believe in positive gun laws you don't believe in universal rights. The paradox is that your legislation is just instrumental then and has nothing to do with justice or moral.
*I* am saying that there are no universal rights. There are no universal obligations either, for that matter.
Your comment re the world above quantum level is quite bizarre, btw.
Yes, there are universal rights. Doesn't everyone have a right to not be enslaved? Doesn't everyone have a right to life? If not, who doesn't have these rights?
Do you believe that all people are created equal? If so, then why does this not lead to the premise that all people have certain rights by virtue of being people?
No, and no.
They probably should be, at least in the world we live in, but there are plenty of places where none of it is true, which means none of your "rights" is "universal".
You are confusing what you want with what actually is.
Note that I'm not arguing against the concept, just its current applicability. It also amuses me to think that someone would somehow put "carrying a firearm" next to "born equal". I know the former is thought to be a prerequisite for the other in the US, but that's not how the whole world sees it, thus immediately nullifying the "universal" part.
Here is the proof that you don't understand what we are talking about. Universal rights exist independent from what anyone thinks. They are an abstraction.
Then you can say: "I don't believe in an abstraction". But then I think you should be honest enough to also admit that you don't have any rights at all. What the UN or EU or Swedish parliament writes on a paper has nothing at all to do with your rights.
The origin of the idea of natural rights, ius naturale, was a Roman concept. The Romans thought that laws that both Romans and foreigners agreed on were "natural", though this was in a concrete way. When you talk about natural rights in a modern concept we mean that the natural rights actually exist as a kind of entity, like God or Providence or whatever. If you want rights but don't believe in natural rights as an entity, you must postulate them. Spooner actually never says that natural rights exist, but he reasons as if they did: "If justice be not a natural principle, it is no principle at all. If it be not a natural principle, there is no such thing as justice."
-
Universal rights aren't the only kind of rights.
Yes, they are. This is what both you and odeon fail to understand. This is pure logic. The world above quantum level works according to binary logic. It is either 0 or 1, just like a computer. There are either universal rights or no rights at all. It can't be both and it can't be anything else.
Who the hell is saying there are no universal rights?
There you go again putting words in our moths.
You are obviously saying it, since you believe in legislation. If you believe in positive gun laws you don't believe in universal rights. The paradox is that your legislation is just instrumental then and has nothing to do with justice or moral.
*I* am saying that there are no universal rights. There are no universal obligations either, for that matter.
Your comment re the world above quantum level is quite bizarre, btw.
Yes, there are universal rights. Doesn't everyone have a right to not be enslaved? Doesn't everyone have a right to life? If not, who doesn't have these rights?
Do you believe that all people are created equal? If so, then why does this not lead to the premise that all people have certain rights by virtue of being people?
No, and no.
They probably should be, at least in the world we live in, but there are plenty of places where none of it is true, which means none of your "rights" is "universal".
You are confusing what you want with what actually is.
Note that I'm not arguing against the concept, just its current applicability. It also amuses me to think that someone would somehow put "carrying a firearm" next to "born equal". I know the former is thought to be a prerequisite for the other in the US, but that's not how the whole world sees it, thus immediately nullifying the "universal" part.
Here's how I see it. People have certain rights just by virtue of being born. This doesn't depend on legislation of the whims of the local government; these rights exist regardless of them. All people are created equal; therefore, all are born with certain rights. These include the right to life and the right to liberty.
If you don't believe this, consider the case where there exists some person who doesn't have these rights. Let's say that there's no legislation to enforce the right to life. Is it then acceptable for me to murder that person? Under your system, it must be. If rights extend from legislation, and there is no legislation to protect the right to life, then why not accept murder? I say that murder is wrong, regardless of who the victim is and what local legislation says about the subject.
As far as "universal" goes, this system also doesn't change depending on anyone's opinion. You have certain rights, even if you don't acknowledge them. Among these are the right to bear arms, to protect yourself and to provide for your family. Here's a question for you. Why is "rights" in quotes? Do you not acknowledge that everyone on the planet has a right to life? Do you think that some people somewhere deserve to be enslaved? If so, who are these people?
As to whether I'm confusing what I want with what is, I could ask you the same question in regards to my position. Your last paragraph seems to point out, in your mind, the bizarre nature of the right to bear arms. As far as rights go, the fact that all people are born equal is fundamental to the right to bear arms, not the other way around. I suspect that you already know this. You've chosen to set up a straw man to point out what you see as an absurdity, instead of presenting a rational argument. I don't support the Second Amendment because of tradition, or out of religious adherence to the Constitution. I support the Second Amendment because I have examined the issue and I have concluded that legalized gun ownership is essential for the preservation of liberty. If you choose to believe something different, fine. However, it's possible for a completely rational culture to choose gun ownership.
Yes, I know that America isn't that completely rational culture. :hahaha:
-
That's about what I posted. Semicolon understands the concept.
-
Oh, and btw. Piers fucking Morgan is not an argument. Just sayin'.
I wasn't making an argument in that last post. Adam asked for information and I give it to him.
-
Not got time to read this properly or reply as Im going out again in a minute. but re free healthcare, yes, we have already discussed this. what's the point in making that "point" again?
we essentially agree on what it is, except I would still say it is "free" healthcare. you wouldnt call it free because it's funded by taxes.
:dunno:
-
Not got time to read this properly or reply as Im going out again in a minute. but re free healthcare, yes, we have already discussed this. what's the point in making that "point" again?
we essentially agree on what it is, except I would still say it is "free" healthcare. you wouldnt call it free because it's funded by taxes.
:dunno:
Which means we're still paying for it. Even people that don't want healthcare still have to pay for it.
-
Seriously, you don't understand. Either universal/natural laws exist or they do not exist.
Since you don't understand that binary logics just exist above quantum level
If you that they don't exist you must (to be intellectually honest anyway) also admit that you don't have any rights.
In the quoted Spooner texts he also perfectly explains this and also tells you that legislation is there to take your rights away from you, so that the oppressors can have their ways with you.
In the light of the faked "war against terror", the NSA shit etc etc etc it's incredible that you don't understand that the state doesn't protect against wrongs but creates and upholds them to keep the powerful psychopaths powerful.
I think you know this very well but can't stand the thought of it.
:LMAO:
-
Universal rights aren't the only kind of rights.
Yes, they are. This is what both you and odeon fail to understand. This is pure logic. The world above quantum level works according to binary logic. It is either 0 or 1, just like a computer. There are either universal rights or no rights at all. It can't be both and it can't be anything else.
Who the hell is saying there are no universal rights?
There you go again putting words in our moths.
You are obviously saying it, since you believe in legislation. If you believe in positive gun laws you don't believe in universal rights. The paradox is that your legislation is just instrumental then and has nothing to do with justice or moral.
Exactly. People don't seem to understand that their beliefs have absolutely no effect on the physical world. Reality is reality. Our governments no longer serve us, so we are in danger. End of story.
I wish you'd understand this.
I wish that everyone would understand it. Although the likeliness for that it would happen at all isn't great you are helpless against an armed burglar without a gun. And if you happen to have a gun and defend yourself successfully with it, the court might send you to prison for it, even if the gun is perfectly legal, because the cunts in court don't care about the fact that you were attacked to begin with.
That is a fact that you really can't argue against at all. You can't legally defend yourself with a gun in Sweden outside your own property, and even in your own bedroom you can't be sure that you might defend yourself and not be punished for it, because your right to defend yourself ("right" according to the law that is) isn't guaranteed even in your own home. In some peculiar way the Swedish legislators think that a criminal's life should be as sacred as yours, even when he attacks you in your own bedroom in the middle of the night. And it is ridiculously hard to legally get a gun to start with, except a rifle.
Is this the way you think it should be?
You keep presenting your opinions and beliefs as if they were facts. This is going nowhere.
Except for the last sentence that is not an opinion but a fact. That is how the Swedish gun law and law about self-defence function in practice, which you are very well aware of. The Rödeby case was exceptional in the respect that a victim who defended himself and killed one aggressor and hurt another very seriously actually didn't go to jail. Usually he would have done that.
In Texas or Colorado he wouldn't even have been prosecuted. That is also a fact.
The last sentence in your post is "Is this the way you think it should be?"
Erm. A fact?
-
Universal rights aren't the only kind of rights.
Yes, they are. This is what both you and odeon fail to understand. This is pure logic. The world above quantum level works according to binary logic. It is either 0 or 1, just like a computer. There are either universal rights or no rights at all. It can't be both and it can't be anything else.
Who the hell is saying there are no universal rights?
There you go again putting words in our moths.
You are obviously saying it, since you believe in legislation. If you believe in positive gun laws you don't believe in universal rights. The paradox is that your legislation is just instrumental then and has nothing to do with justice or moral.
*I* am saying that there are no universal rights. There are no universal obligations either, for that matter.
Your comment re the world above quantum level is quite bizarre, btw.
Yes, there are universal rights. Doesn't everyone have a right to not be enslaved? Doesn't everyone have a right to life? If not, who doesn't have these rights?
Do you believe that all people are created equal? If so, then why does this not lead to the premise that all people have certain rights by virtue of being people?
No, and no.
They probably should be, at least in the world we live in, but there are plenty of places where none of it is true, which means none of your "rights" is "universal".
You are confusing what you want with what actually is.
Note that I'm not arguing against the concept, just its current applicability. It also amuses me to think that someone would somehow put "carrying a firearm" next to "born equal". I know the former is thought to be a prerequisite for the other in the US, but that's not how the whole world sees it, thus immediately nullifying the "universal" part.
Here is the proof that you don't understand what we are talking about. Universal rights exist independent from what anyone thinks. They are an abstraction.
Then you can say: "I don't believe in an abstraction". But then I think you should be honest enough to also admit that you don't have any rights at all. What the UN or EU or Swedish parliament writes on a paper has nothing at all to do with your rights.
The origin of the idea of natural rights, ius naturale, was a Roman concept. The Romans thought that laws that both Romans and foreigners agreed on were "natural", though this was in a concrete way. When you talk about natural rights in a modern concept we mean that the natural rights actually exist as a kind of entity, like God or Providence or whatever. If you want rights but don't believe in natural rights as an entity, you must postulate them. Spooner actually never says that natural rights exist, but he reasons as if they did: "If justice be not a natural principle, it is no principle at all. If it be not a natural principle, there is no such thing as justice."
Doesn't make it a universal truth.
This is going in circles and you aren't convincing anyone. Well, maybe Rage, but there's a circle jerk going on there that is a bit sad, tbh.
-
Universal rights aren't the only kind of rights.
Yes, they are. This is what both you and odeon fail to understand. This is pure logic. The world above quantum level works according to binary logic. It is either 0 or 1, just like a computer. There are either universal rights or no rights at all. It can't be both and it can't be anything else.
Who the hell is saying there are no universal rights?
There you go again putting words in our moths.
You are obviously saying it, since you believe in legislation. If you believe in positive gun laws you don't believe in universal rights. The paradox is that your legislation is just instrumental then and has nothing to do with justice or moral.
Exactly. People don't seem to understand that their beliefs have absolutely no effect on the physical world. Reality is reality. Our governments no longer serve us, so we are in danger. End of story.
I wish you'd understand this.
I wish that everyone would understand it. Although the likeliness for that it would happen at all isn't great you are helpless against an armed burglar without a gun. And if you happen to have a gun and defend yourself successfully with it, the court might send you to prison for it, even if the gun is perfectly legal, because the cunts in court don't care about the fact that you were attacked to begin with.
That is a fact that you really can't argue against at all. You can't legally defend yourself with a gun in Sweden outside your own property, and even in your own bedroom you can't be sure that you might defend yourself and not be punished for it, because your right to defend yourself ("right" according to the law that is) isn't guaranteed even in your own home. In some peculiar way the Swedish legislators think that a criminal's life should be as sacred as yours, even when he attacks you in your own bedroom in the middle of the night. And it is ridiculously hard to legally get a gun to start with, except a rifle.
Is this the way you think it should be?
You keep presenting your opinions and beliefs as if they were facts. This is going nowhere.
Except for the last sentence that is not an opinion but a fact. That is how the Swedish gun law and law about self-defence function in practice, which you are very well aware of. The Rödeby case was exceptional in the respect that a victim who defended himself and killed one aggressor and hurt another very seriously actually didn't go to jail. Usually he would have done that.
In Texas or Colorado he wouldn't even have been prosecuted. That is also a fact.
The last sentence in your post is "Is this the way you think it should be?"
Erm. A fact?
The two last sentences, then, but you know that it is like this. It is almost impossible to legally protect yourself against criminals in Sweden. Why are you pretending that it isn't?
-
Universal rights aren't the only kind of rights.
Yes, they are. This is what both you and odeon fail to understand. This is pure logic. The world above quantum level works according to binary logic. It is either 0 or 1, just like a computer. There are either universal rights or no rights at all. It can't be both and it can't be anything else.
Who the hell is saying there are no universal rights?
There you go again putting words in our moths.
You are obviously saying it, since you believe in legislation. If you believe in positive gun laws you don't believe in universal rights. The paradox is that your legislation is just instrumental then and has nothing to do with justice or moral.
*I* am saying that there are no universal rights. There are no universal obligations either, for that matter.
Your comment re the world above quantum level is quite bizarre, btw.
Yes, there are universal rights. Doesn't everyone have a right to not be enslaved? Doesn't everyone have a right to life? If not, who doesn't have these rights?
Do you believe that all people are created equal? If so, then why does this not lead to the premise that all people have certain rights by virtue of being people?
No, and no.
They probably should be, at least in the world we live in, but there are plenty of places where none of it is true, which means none of your "rights" is "universal".
You are confusing what you want with what actually is.
Note that I'm not arguing against the concept, just its current applicability. It also amuses me to think that someone would somehow put "carrying a firearm" next to "born equal". I know the former is thought to be a prerequisite for the other in the US, but that's not how the whole world sees it, thus immediately nullifying the "universal" part.
Here's how I see it. People have certain rights just by virtue of being born. This doesn't depend on legislation of the whims of the local government; these rights exist regardless of them. All people are created equal; therefore, all are born with certain rights. These include the right to life and the right to liberty.
If you don't believe this, consider the case where there exists some person who doesn't have these rights. Let's say that there's no legislation to enforce the right to life. Is it then acceptable for me to murder that person? Under your system, it must be. If rights extend from legislation, and there is no legislation to protect the right to life, then why not accept murder? I say that murder is wrong, regardless of who the victim is and what local legislation says about the subject.
As far as "universal" goes, this system also doesn't change depending on anyone's opinion. You have certain rights, even if you don't acknowledge them. Among these are the right to bear arms, to protect yourself and to provide for your family. Here's a question for you. Why is "rights" in quotes? Do you not acknowledge that everyone on the planet has a right to life? Do you think that some people somewhere deserve to be enslaved? If so, who are these people?
As to whether I'm confusing what I want with what is, I could ask you the same question in regards to my position. Your last paragraph seems to point out, in your mind, the bizarre nature of the right to bear arms. As far as rights go, the fact that all people are born equal is fundamental to the right to bear arms, not the other way around. I suspect that you already know this. You've chosen to set up a straw man to point out what you see as an absurdity, instead of presenting a rational argument. I don't support the Second Amendment because of tradition, or out of religious adherence to the Constitution. I support the Second Amendment because I have examined the issue and I have concluded that legalized gun ownership is essential for the preservation of liberty. If you choose to believe something different, fine. However, it's possible for a completely rational culture to choose gun ownership.
Yes, I know that America isn't that completely rational culture. :hahaha:
Prove the "universal" bit to me.
You may think that it stands to reason that people are born equal, and it is a nice, idealistic concept, wonderfully, blissfully moral in its utter naivety.
̈́
Hell, you may even postulate such a thing, and it's a perfectly acceptable viewpoint when arguing philosophy, but it's a far stretch from an absolute, universally proven "right". It speaks to your sense of justice and fairness, but seriously, mate, since when was the universe fair and just, or even relevant to our little planet in the grand scheme of things?
It always amazes me to see how people may reject the notion of a supreme being while confidently quoting "universal" rights. The fact is that the universe is neither just nor fair. It's indifferent and an insignificant collection of microbes won't magically acquire special rights in it because there are no special rights to be had.
-
Universal rights aren't the only kind of rights.
Yes, they are. This is what both you and odeon fail to understand. This is pure logic. The world above quantum level works according to binary logic. It is either 0 or 1, just like a computer. There are either universal rights or no rights at all. It can't be both and it can't be anything else.
Who the hell is saying there are no universal rights?
There you go again putting words in our moths.
You are obviously saying it, since you believe in legislation. If you believe in positive gun laws you don't believe in universal rights. The paradox is that your legislation is just instrumental then and has nothing to do with justice or moral.
Exactly. People don't seem to understand that their beliefs have absolutely no effect on the physical world. Reality is reality. Our governments no longer serve us, so we are in danger. End of story.
I wish you'd understand this.
I wish that everyone would understand it. Although the likeliness for that it would happen at all isn't great you are helpless against an armed burglar without a gun. And if you happen to have a gun and defend yourself successfully with it, the court might send you to prison for it, even if the gun is perfectly legal, because the cunts in court don't care about the fact that you were attacked to begin with.
That is a fact that you really can't argue against at all. You can't legally defend yourself with a gun in Sweden outside your own property, and even in your own bedroom you can't be sure that you might defend yourself and not be punished for it, because your right to defend yourself ("right" according to the law that is) isn't guaranteed even in your own home. In some peculiar way the Swedish legislators think that a criminal's life should be as sacred as yours, even when he attacks you in your own bedroom in the middle of the night. And it is ridiculously hard to legally get a gun to start with, except a rifle.
Is this the way you think it should be?
You keep presenting your opinions and beliefs as if they were facts. This is going nowhere.
Except for the last sentence that is not an opinion but a fact. That is how the Swedish gun law and law about self-defence function in practice, which you are very well aware of. The Rödeby case was exceptional in the respect that a victim who defended himself and killed one aggressor and hurt another very seriously actually didn't go to jail. Usually he would have done that.
In Texas or Colorado he wouldn't even have been prosecuted. That is also a fact.
The last sentence in your post is "Is this the way you think it should be?"
Erm. A fact?
The two last sentences, then, but you know that it is like this. It is almost impossible to legally protect yourself against criminals in Sweden. Why are you pretending that it isn't?
I'm not. I'm disagreeing with you. Very different, but I don't think it's something you will grasp any time soon.
-
Universal rights aren't the only kind of rights.
Yes, they are. This is what both you and odeon fail to understand. This is pure logic. The world above quantum level works according to binary logic. It is either 0 or 1, just like a computer. There are either universal rights or no rights at all. It can't be both and it can't be anything else.
Who the hell is saying there are no universal rights?
There you go again putting words in our moths.
You are obviously saying it, since you believe in legislation. If you believe in positive gun laws you don't believe in universal rights. The paradox is that your legislation is just instrumental then and has nothing to do with justice or moral.
*I* am saying that there are no universal rights. There are no universal obligations either, for that matter.
Your comment re the world above quantum level is quite bizarre, btw.
Yes, there are universal rights. Doesn't everyone have a right to not be enslaved? Doesn't everyone have a right to life? If not, who doesn't have these rights?
Do you believe that all people are created equal? If so, then why does this not lead to the premise that all people have certain rights by virtue of being people?
No, and no.
They probably should be, at least in the world we live in, but there are plenty of places where none of it is true, which means none of your "rights" is "universal".
You are confusing what you want with what actually is.
Note that I'm not arguing against the concept, just its current applicability. It also amuses me to think that someone would somehow put "carrying a firearm" next to "born equal". I know the former is thought to be a prerequisite for the other in the US, but that's not how the whole world sees it, thus immediately nullifying the "universal" part.
Here is the proof that you don't understand what we are talking about. Universal rights exist independent from what anyone thinks. They are an abstraction.
Then you can say: "I don't believe in an abstraction". But then I think you should be honest enough to also admit that you don't have any rights at all. What the UN or EU or Swedish parliament writes on a paper has nothing at all to do with your rights.
The origin of the idea of natural rights, ius naturale, was a Roman concept. The Romans thought that laws that both Romans and foreigners agreed on were "natural", though this was in a concrete way. When you talk about natural rights in a modern concept we mean that the natural rights actually exist as a kind of entity, like God or Providence or whatever. If you want rights but don't believe in natural rights as an entity, you must postulate them. Spooner actually never says that natural rights exist, but he reasons as if they did: "If justice be not a natural principle, it is no principle at all. If it be not a natural principle, there is no such thing as justice."
Doesn't make it a universal truth.
This is going in circles and you aren't convincing anyone. Well, maybe Rage, but there's a circle jerk going on there that is a bit sad, tbh.
Yes, it is precisely what it does. Logically something must either exist or not exist. Either rights exist and are universal/natural or they don't. There is nothing in between. Legislation has nothing to do with the existence of rights or not.
You either don't understand this or refuse to accept it. Semicolon understands it.
-
Oh and re this:
smell[/i] your contempt for us. Well fuck you too.
Either apologise or back up your shit.
-
Logically something must either exist or not exist. Either rights exist and are universal/natural or they don't.
Another logical fallacy.
-
Universal rights aren't the only kind of rights.
Yes, they are. This is what both you and odeon fail to understand. This is pure logic. The world above quantum level works according to binary logic. It is either 0 or 1, just like a computer. There are either universal rights or no rights at all. It can't be both and it can't be anything else.
Who the hell is saying there are no universal rights?
There you go again putting words in our moths.
You are obviously saying it, since you believe in legislation. If you believe in positive gun laws you don't believe in universal rights. The paradox is that your legislation is just instrumental then and has nothing to do with justice or moral.
*I* am saying that there are no universal rights. There are no universal obligations either, for that matter.
Your comment re the world above quantum level is quite bizarre, btw.
Yes, there are universal rights. Doesn't everyone have a right to not be enslaved? Doesn't everyone have a right to life? If not, who doesn't have these rights?
Do you believe that all people are created equal? If so, then why does this not lead to the premise that all people have certain rights by virtue of being people?
No, and no.
They probably should be, at least in the world we live in, but there are plenty of places where none of it is true, which means none of your "rights" is "universal".
You are confusing what you want with what actually is.
Note that I'm not arguing against the concept, just its current applicability. It also amuses me to think that someone would somehow put "carrying a firearm" next to "born equal". I know the former is thought to be a prerequisite for the other in the US, but that's not how the whole world sees it, thus immediately nullifying the "universal" part.
Here's how I see it. People have certain rights just by virtue of being born. This doesn't depend on legislation of the whims of the local government; these rights exist regardless of them. All people are created equal; therefore, all are born with certain rights. These include the right to life and the right to liberty.
If you don't believe this, consider the case where there exists some person who doesn't have these rights. Let's say that there's no legislation to enforce the right to life. Is it then acceptable for me to murder that person? Under your system, it must be. If rights extend from legislation, and there is no legislation to protect the right to life, then why not accept murder? I say that murder is wrong, regardless of who the victim is and what local legislation says about the subject.
As far as "universal" goes, this system also doesn't change depending on anyone's opinion. You have certain rights, even if you don't acknowledge them. Among these are the right to bear arms, to protect yourself and to provide for your family. Here's a question for you. Why is "rights" in quotes? Do you not acknowledge that everyone on the planet has a right to life? Do you think that some people somewhere deserve to be enslaved? If so, who are these people?
As to whether I'm confusing what I want with what is, I could ask you the same question in regards to my position. Your last paragraph seems to point out, in your mind, the bizarre nature of the right to bear arms. As far as rights go, the fact that all people are born equal is fundamental to the right to bear arms, not the other way around. I suspect that you already know this. You've chosen to set up a straw man to point out what you see as an absurdity, instead of presenting a rational argument. I don't support the Second Amendment because of tradition, or out of religious adherence to the Constitution. I support the Second Amendment because I have examined the issue and I have concluded that legalized gun ownership is essential for the preservation of liberty. If you choose to believe something different, fine. However, it's possible for a completely rational culture to choose gun ownership.
Yes, I know that America isn't that completely rational culture. :hahaha:
Prove the "universal" bit to me.
You may think that it stands to reason that people are born equal, and it is a nice, idealistic concept, wonderfully, blissfully moral in its utter naivety.
̈́
Hell, you may even postulate such a thing, and it's a perfectly acceptable viewpoint when arguing philosophy, but it's a far stretch from an absolute, universally proven "right". It speaks to your sense of justice and fairness, but seriously, mate, since when was the universe fair and just, or even relevant to our little planet in the grand scheme of things?
It always amazes me to see how people may reject the notion of a supreme being while confidently quoting "universal" rights. The fact is that the universe is neither just nor fair. It's indifferent and an insignificant collection of microbes won't magically acquire special rights in it because there are no special rights to be had.
We are all born equal, man. We're not the same, but we have an equal amount of entitlement to live, to be free, and to make ourselves happy. This does not mean that it should be forced though, I admit that. If someone is stronger than someone else, or more skilled, then they will probably be more likely to get what they want.
Which is why its retarded to take guns away from law abiding citizens. The people who want to prey on them aren't going to obey that law. Government won't obey that law.
-
Oh and re this:
smell[/i] your contempt for us. Well fuck you too.
Either apologise or back up your shit.
I already backed it up. What more do you require?
-
We are all born equal, man.
Prove it.
-
Universal rights aren't the only kind of rights.
Yes, they are. This is what both you and odeon fail to understand. This is pure logic. The world above quantum level works according to binary logic. It is either 0 or 1, just like a computer. There are either universal rights or no rights at all. It can't be both and it can't be anything else.
Who the hell is saying there are no universal rights?
There you go again putting words in our moths.
You are obviously saying it, since you believe in legislation. If you believe in positive gun laws you don't believe in universal rights. The paradox is that your legislation is just instrumental then and has nothing to do with justice or moral.
*I* am saying that there are no universal rights. There are no universal obligations either, for that matter.
Your comment re the world above quantum level is quite bizarre, btw.
Yes, there are universal rights. Doesn't everyone have a right to not be enslaved? Doesn't everyone have a right to life? If not, who doesn't have these rights?
Do you believe that all people are created equal? If so, then why does this not lead to the premise that all people have certain rights by virtue of being people?
No, and no.
They probably should be, at least in the world we live in, but there are plenty of places where none of it is true, which means none of your "rights" is "universal".
You are confusing what you want with what actually is.
Note that I'm not arguing against the concept, just its current applicability. It also amuses me to think that someone would somehow put "carrying a firearm" next to "born equal". I know the former is thought to be a prerequisite for the other in the US, but that's not how the whole world sees it, thus immediately nullifying the "universal" part.
Here's how I see it. People have certain rights just by virtue of being born. This doesn't depend on legislation of the whims of the local government; these rights exist regardless of them. All people are created equal; therefore, all are born with certain rights. These include the right to life and the right to liberty.
If you don't believe this, consider the case where there exists some person who doesn't have these rights. Let's say that there's no legislation to enforce the right to life. Is it then acceptable for me to murder that person? Under your system, it must be. If rights extend from legislation, and there is no legislation to protect the right to life, then why not accept murder? I say that murder is wrong, regardless of who the victim is and what local legislation says about the subject.
As far as "universal" goes, this system also doesn't change depending on anyone's opinion. You have certain rights, even if you don't acknowledge them. Among these are the right to bear arms, to protect yourself and to provide for your family. Here's a question for you. Why is "rights" in quotes? Do you not acknowledge that everyone on the planet has a right to life? Do you think that some people somewhere deserve to be enslaved? If so, who are these people?
As to whether I'm confusing what I want with what is, I could ask you the same question in regards to my position. Your last paragraph seems to point out, in your mind, the bizarre nature of the right to bear arms. As far as rights go, the fact that all people are born equal is fundamental to the right to bear arms, not the other way around. I suspect that you already know this. You've chosen to set up a straw man to point out what you see as an absurdity, instead of presenting a rational argument. I don't support the Second Amendment because of tradition, or out of religious adherence to the Constitution. I support the Second Amendment because I have examined the issue and I have concluded that legalized gun ownership is essential for the preservation of liberty. If you choose to believe something different, fine. However, it's possible for a completely rational culture to choose gun ownership.
Yes, I know that America isn't that completely rational culture. :hahaha:
Prove the "universal" bit to me.
You may think that it stands to reason that people are born equal, and it is a nice, idealistic concept, wonderfully, blissfully moral in its utter naivety.
̈́
Hell, you may even postulate such a thing, and it's a perfectly acceptable viewpoint when arguing philosophy, but it's a far stretch from an absolute, universally proven "right". It speaks to your sense of justice and fairness, but seriously, mate, since when was the universe fair and just, or even relevant to our little planet in the grand scheme of things?
It always amazes me to see how people may reject the notion of a supreme being while confidently quoting "universal" rights. The fact is that the universe is neither just nor fair. It's indifferent and an insignificant collection of microbes won't magically acquire special rights in it because there are no special rights to be had.
OK, you don't believe in rights. Why are you demanding legislation about guns - and other things - then? Rights don't exist. Just accept that everything is as it is, then. But you don't.
-
Logically something must either exist or not exist. Either rights exist and are universal/natural or they don't.
Another logical fallacy.
No. Rights can't both exist and not exist, just like there can and can't be a moon at the same time.
-
We are all born equal, man.
Prove it.
Because we can all think. BURRRNNNN
-
Universal rights aren't the only kind of rights.
Yes, they are. This is what both you and odeon fail to understand. This is pure logic. The world above quantum level works according to binary logic. It is either 0 or 1, just like a computer. There are either universal rights or no rights at all. It can't be both and it can't be anything else.
Who the hell is saying there are no universal rights?
There you go again putting words in our moths.
You are obviously saying it, since you believe in legislation. If you believe in positive gun laws you don't believe in universal rights. The paradox is that your legislation is just instrumental then and has nothing to do with justice or moral.
*I* am saying that there are no universal rights. There are no universal obligations either, for that matter.
Your comment re the world above quantum level is quite bizarre, btw.
Yes, there are universal rights. Doesn't everyone have a right to not be enslaved? Doesn't everyone have a right to life? If not, who doesn't have these rights?
Do you believe that all people are created equal? If so, then why does this not lead to the premise that all people have certain rights by virtue of being people?
No, and no.
They probably should be, at least in the world we live in, but there are plenty of places where none of it is true, which means none of your "rights" is "universal".
You are confusing what you want with what actually is.
Note that I'm not arguing against the concept, just its current applicability. It also amuses me to think that someone would somehow put "carrying a firearm" next to "born equal". I know the former is thought to be a prerequisite for the other in the US, but that's not how the whole world sees it, thus immediately nullifying the "universal" part.
Here's how I see it. People have certain rights just by virtue of being born. This doesn't depend on legislation of the whims of the local government; these rights exist regardless of them. All people are created equal; therefore, all are born with certain rights. These include the right to life and the right to liberty.
If you don't believe this, consider the case where there exists some person who doesn't have these rights. Let's say that there's no legislation to enforce the right to life. Is it then acceptable for me to murder that person? Under your system, it must be. If rights extend from legislation, and there is no legislation to protect the right to life, then why not accept murder? I say that murder is wrong, regardless of who the victim is and what local legislation says about the subject.
As far as "universal" goes, this system also doesn't change depending on anyone's opinion. You have certain rights, even if you don't acknowledge them. Among these are the right to bear arms, to protect yourself and to provide for your family. Here's a question for you. Why is "rights" in quotes? Do you not acknowledge that everyone on the planet has a right to life? Do you think that some people somewhere deserve to be enslaved? If so, who are these people?
As to whether I'm confusing what I want with what is, I could ask you the same question in regards to my position. Your last paragraph seems to point out, in your mind, the bizarre nature of the right to bear arms. As far as rights go, the fact that all people are born equal is fundamental to the right to bear arms, not the other way around. I suspect that you already know this. You've chosen to set up a straw man to point out what you see as an absurdity, instead of presenting a rational argument. I don't support the Second Amendment because of tradition, or out of religious adherence to the Constitution. I support the Second Amendment because I have examined the issue and I have concluded that legalized gun ownership is essential for the preservation of liberty. If you choose to believe something different, fine. However, it's possible for a completely rational culture to choose gun ownership.
Yes, I know that America isn't that completely rational culture. :hahaha:
Prove the "universal" bit to me.
You may think that it stands to reason that people are born equal, and it is a nice, idealistic concept, wonderfully, blissfully moral in its utter naivety.
̈́
Hell, you may even postulate such a thing, and it's a perfectly acceptable viewpoint when arguing philosophy, but it's a far stretch from an absolute, universally proven "right". It speaks to your sense of justice and fairness, but seriously, mate, since when was the universe fair and just, or even relevant to our little planet in the grand scheme of things?
It always amazes me to see how people may reject the notion of a supreme being while confidently quoting "universal" rights. The fact is that the universe is neither just nor fair. It's indifferent and an insignificant collection of microbes won't magically acquire special rights in it because there are no special rights to be had.
OK, you don't believe in rights. Why are you demanding legislation about guns - and other things - then? Rights don't exist. Just accept that everything is as it is, then. But you don't.
The "universal" rights you are speaking of and legislation are two very different things. I guess you just can't see the difference.
-
Universal rights aren't the only kind of rights.
Yes, they are. This is what both you and odeon fail to understand. This is pure logic. The world above quantum level works according to binary logic. It is either 0 or 1, just like a computer. There are either universal rights or no rights at all. It can't be both and it can't be anything else.
Who the hell is saying there are no universal rights?
There you go again putting words in our moths.
You are obviously saying it, since you believe in legislation. If you believe in positive gun laws you don't believe in universal rights. The paradox is that your legislation is just instrumental then and has nothing to do with justice or moral.
Exactly. People don't seem to understand that their beliefs have absolutely no effect on the physical world. Reality is reality. Our governments no longer serve us, so we are in danger. End of story.
I wish you'd understand this.
I wish that everyone would understand it. Although the likeliness for that it would happen at all isn't great you are helpless against an armed burglar without a gun. And if you happen to have a gun and defend yourself successfully with it, the court might send you to prison for it, even if the gun is perfectly legal, because the cunts in court don't care about the fact that you were attacked to begin with.
That is a fact that you really can't argue against at all. You can't legally defend yourself with a gun in Sweden outside your own property, and even in your own bedroom you can't be sure that you might defend yourself and not be punished for it, because your right to defend yourself ("right" according to the law that is) isn't guaranteed even in your own home. In some peculiar way the Swedish legislators think that a criminal's life should be as sacred as yours, even when he attacks you in your own bedroom in the middle of the night. And it is ridiculously hard to legally get a gun to start with, except a rifle.
Is this the way you think it should be?
You keep presenting your opinions and beliefs as if they were facts. This is going nowhere.
Except for the last sentence that is not an opinion but a fact. That is how the Swedish gun law and law about self-defence function in practice, which you are very well aware of. The Rödeby case was exceptional in the respect that a victim who defended himself and killed one aggressor and hurt another very seriously actually didn't go to jail. Usually he would have done that.
In Texas or Colorado he wouldn't even have been prosecuted. That is also a fact.
The last sentence in your post is "Is this the way you think it should be?"
Erm. A fact?
The two last sentences, then, but you know that it is like this. It is almost impossible to legally protect yourself against criminals in Sweden. Why are you pretending that it isn't?
I'm not. I'm disagreeing with you. Very different, but I don't think it's something you will grasp any time soon.
OK. Say that a stalker were after you. You considered him dangerous. In America you go and buy a gun, so you can defend yourself. In Sweden you do what?
-
Logically something must either exist or not exist. Either rights exist and are universal/natural or they don't.
Another logical fallacy.
No. Rights can't both exist and not exist, just like there can and can't be a moon at the same time.
It's funny how you are constantly contradicting yourself. "Rights" and "universal rights" are two different things. "No rights" is a third, btw, and immediately crashes your little binary theory.
-
We are all born equal, man.
Prove it.
Because we can all think. BURRRNNNN
Fail.
-
Universal rights aren't the only kind of rights.
Yes, they are. This is what both you and odeon fail to understand. This is pure logic. The world above quantum level works according to binary logic. It is either 0 or 1, just like a computer. There are either universal rights or no rights at all. It can't be both and it can't be anything else.
Who the hell is saying there are no universal rights?
There you go again putting words in our moths.
You are obviously saying it, since you believe in legislation. If you believe in positive gun laws you don't believe in universal rights. The paradox is that your legislation is just instrumental then and has nothing to do with justice or moral.
Exactly. People don't seem to understand that their beliefs have absolutely no effect on the physical world. Reality is reality. Our governments no longer serve us, so we are in danger. End of story.
I wish you'd understand this.
I wish that everyone would understand it. Although the likeliness for that it would happen at all isn't great you are helpless against an armed burglar without a gun. And if you happen to have a gun and defend yourself successfully with it, the court might send you to prison for it, even if the gun is perfectly legal, because the cunts in court don't care about the fact that you were attacked to begin with.
That is a fact that you really can't argue against at all. You can't legally defend yourself with a gun in Sweden outside your own property, and even in your own bedroom you can't be sure that you might defend yourself and not be punished for it, because your right to defend yourself ("right" according to the law that is) isn't guaranteed even in your own home. In some peculiar way the Swedish legislators think that a criminal's life should be as sacred as yours, even when he attacks you in your own bedroom in the middle of the night. And it is ridiculously hard to legally get a gun to start with, except a rifle.
Is this the way you think it should be?
You keep presenting your opinions and beliefs as if they were facts. This is going nowhere.
Except for the last sentence that is not an opinion but a fact. That is how the Swedish gun law and law about self-defence function in practice, which you are very well aware of. The Rödeby case was exceptional in the respect that a victim who defended himself and killed one aggressor and hurt another very seriously actually didn't go to jail. Usually he would have done that.
In Texas or Colorado he wouldn't even have been prosecuted. That is also a fact.
The last sentence in your post is "Is this the way you think it should be?"
Erm. A fact?
The two last sentences, then, but you know that it is like this. It is almost impossible to legally protect yourself against criminals in Sweden. Why are you pretending that it isn't?
I'm not. I'm disagreeing with you. Very different, but I don't think it's something you will grasp any time soon.
OK. Say that a stalker were after you. You considered him dangerous. In America you go and buy a gun, so you can defend yourself. In Sweden you do what?
I love it how you change, or rather *miss*, the subject.
-
Universal rights aren't the only kind of rights.
Yes, they are. This is what both you and odeon fail to understand. This is pure logic. The world above quantum level works according to binary logic. It is either 0 or 1, just like a computer. There are either universal rights or no rights at all. It can't be both and it can't be anything else.
Who the hell is saying there are no universal rights?
There you go again putting words in our moths.
You are obviously saying it, since you believe in legislation. If you believe in positive gun laws you don't believe in universal rights. The paradox is that your legislation is just instrumental then and has nothing to do with justice or moral.
*I* am saying that there are no universal rights. There are no universal obligations either, for that matter.
Your comment re the world above quantum level is quite bizarre, btw.
Yes, there are universal rights. Doesn't everyone have a right to not be enslaved? Doesn't everyone have a right to life? If not, who doesn't have these rights?
Do you believe that all people are created equal? If so, then why does this not lead to the premise that all people have certain rights by virtue of being people?
No, and no.
They probably should be, at least in the world we live in, but there are plenty of places where none of it is true, which means none of your "rights" is "universal".
You are confusing what you want with what actually is.
Note that I'm not arguing against the concept, just its current applicability. It also amuses me to think that someone would somehow put "carrying a firearm" next to "born equal". I know the former is thought to be a prerequisite for the other in the US, but that's not how the whole world sees it, thus immediately nullifying the "universal" part.
Here's how I see it. People have certain rights just by virtue of being born. This doesn't depend on legislation of the whims of the local government; these rights exist regardless of them. All people are created equal; therefore, all are born with certain rights. These include the right to life and the right to liberty.
If you don't believe this, consider the case where there exists some person who doesn't have these rights. Let's say that there's no legislation to enforce the right to life. Is it then acceptable for me to murder that person? Under your system, it must be. If rights extend from legislation, and there is no legislation to protect the right to life, then why not accept murder? I say that murder is wrong, regardless of who the victim is and what local legislation says about the subject.
As far as "universal" goes, this system also doesn't change depending on anyone's opinion. You have certain rights, even if you don't acknowledge them. Among these are the right to bear arms, to protect yourself and to provide for your family. Here's a question for you. Why is "rights" in quotes? Do you not acknowledge that everyone on the planet has a right to life? Do you think that some people somewhere deserve to be enslaved? If so, who are these people?
As to whether I'm confusing what I want with what is, I could ask you the same question in regards to my position. Your last paragraph seems to point out, in your mind, the bizarre nature of the right to bear arms. As far as rights go, the fact that all people are born equal is fundamental to the right to bear arms, not the other way around. I suspect that you already know this. You've chosen to set up a straw man to point out what you see as an absurdity, instead of presenting a rational argument. I don't support the Second Amendment because of tradition, or out of religious adherence to the Constitution. I support the Second Amendment because I have examined the issue and I have concluded that legalized gun ownership is essential for the preservation of liberty. If you choose to believe something different, fine. However, it's possible for a completely rational culture to choose gun ownership.
Yes, I know that America isn't that completely rational culture. :hahaha:
Prove the "universal" bit to me.
You may think that it stands to reason that people are born equal, and it is a nice, idealistic concept, wonderfully, blissfully moral in its utter naivety.
̈́
Hell, you may even postulate such a thing, and it's a perfectly acceptable viewpoint when arguing philosophy, but it's a far stretch from an absolute, universally proven "right". It speaks to your sense of justice and fairness, but seriously, mate, since when was the universe fair and just, or even relevant to our little planet in the grand scheme of things?
It always amazes me to see how people may reject the notion of a supreme being while confidently quoting "universal" rights. The fact is that the universe is neither just nor fair. It's indifferent and an insignificant collection of microbes won't magically acquire special rights in it because there are no special rights to be had.
OK, you don't believe in rights. Why are you demanding legislation about guns - and other things - then? Rights don't exist. Just accept that everything is as it is, then. But you don't.
The "universal" rights you are speaking of and legislation are two very different things. I guess you just can't see the difference.
Yes, they are very different. Legislation was made up by someone completely arbitrary and for his own sake. It has nothing to do with rights or justice.
You fail to see that if you don't believe in rights, it would be suitable not to claim any, as you are speaking against yourself when claiming something that you are saying is non-existent.
-
Universal rights aren't the only kind of rights.
Yes, they are. This is what both you and odeon fail to understand. This is pure logic. The world above quantum level works according to binary logic. It is either 0 or 1, just like a computer. There are either universal rights or no rights at all. It can't be both and it can't be anything else.
Who the hell is saying there are no universal rights?
There you go again putting words in our moths.
You are obviously saying it, since you believe in legislation. If you believe in positive gun laws you don't believe in universal rights. The paradox is that your legislation is just instrumental then and has nothing to do with justice or moral.
*I* am saying that there are no universal rights. There are no universal obligations either, for that matter.
Your comment re the world above quantum level is quite bizarre, btw.
Yes, there are universal rights. Doesn't everyone have a right to not be enslaved? Doesn't everyone have a right to life? If not, who doesn't have these rights?
Do you believe that all people are created equal? If so, then why does this not lead to the premise that all people have certain rights by virtue of being people?
No, and no.
They probably should be, at least in the world we live in, but there are plenty of places where none of it is true, which means none of your "rights" is "universal".
You are confusing what you want with what actually is.
Note that I'm not arguing against the concept, just its current applicability. It also amuses me to think that someone would somehow put "carrying a firearm" next to "born equal". I know the former is thought to be a prerequisite for the other in the US, but that's not how the whole world sees it, thus immediately nullifying the "universal" part.
Here's how I see it. People have certain rights just by virtue of being born. This doesn't depend on legislation of the whims of the local government; these rights exist regardless of them. All people are created equal; therefore, all are born with certain rights. These include the right to life and the right to liberty.
If you don't believe this, consider the case where there exists some person who doesn't have these rights. Let's say that there's no legislation to enforce the right to life. Is it then acceptable for me to murder that person? Under your system, it must be. If rights extend from legislation, and there is no legislation to protect the right to life, then why not accept murder? I say that murder is wrong, regardless of who the victim is and what local legislation says about the subject.
As far as "universal" goes, this system also doesn't change depending on anyone's opinion. You have certain rights, even if you don't acknowledge them. Among these are the right to bear arms, to protect yourself and to provide for your family. Here's a question for you. Why is "rights" in quotes? Do you not acknowledge that everyone on the planet has a right to life? Do you think that some people somewhere deserve to be enslaved? If so, who are these people?
As to whether I'm confusing what I want with what is, I could ask you the same question in regards to my position. Your last paragraph seems to point out, in your mind, the bizarre nature of the right to bear arms. As far as rights go, the fact that all people are born equal is fundamental to the right to bear arms, not the other way around. I suspect that you already know this. You've chosen to set up a straw man to point out what you see as an absurdity, instead of presenting a rational argument. I don't support the Second Amendment because of tradition, or out of religious adherence to the Constitution. I support the Second Amendment because I have examined the issue and I have concluded that legalized gun ownership is essential for the preservation of liberty. If you choose to believe something different, fine. However, it's possible for a completely rational culture to choose gun ownership.
Yes, I know that America isn't that completely rational culture. :hahaha:
Prove the "universal" bit to me.
You may think that it stands to reason that people are born equal, and it is a nice, idealistic concept, wonderfully, blissfully moral in its utter naivety.
̈́
Hell, you may even postulate such a thing, and it's a perfectly acceptable viewpoint when arguing philosophy, but it's a far stretch from an absolute, universally proven "right". It speaks to your sense of justice and fairness, but seriously, mate, since when was the universe fair and just, or even relevant to our little planet in the grand scheme of things?
It always amazes me to see how people may reject the notion of a supreme being while confidently quoting "universal" rights. The fact is that the universe is neither just nor fair. It's indifferent and an insignificant collection of microbes won't magically acquire special rights in it because there are no special rights to be had.
OK, you don't believe in rights. Why are you demanding legislation about guns - and other things - then? Rights don't exist. Just accept that everything is as it is, then. But you don't.
The "universal" rights you are speaking of and legislation are two very different things. I guess you just can't see the difference.
Yeah. The rights of the people trump government's rights to pass legislation. In fact my own government is required by the constitution they swear to obey when taking office to obey it, only changing it or amending it with the express consent of the citizenry. No lie. Even the president is required by law to apply for an amendment or change to the constitution and his "application" is to be reviewed by the house and senate, put to vote by the people, and sent back. If it makes it through ALL THAT, then it can be amended ONLY IN THE WAY THE APPLICATION STATED.
Our president has not been doing that. Our past few presidents haven't, in fact. How about yours? Is your president being a shit?
-
Universal rights aren't the only kind of rights.
Yes, they are. This is what both you and odeon fail to understand. This is pure logic. The world above quantum level works according to binary logic. It is either 0 or 1, just like a computer. There are either universal rights or no rights at all. It can't be both and it can't be anything else.
Who the hell is saying there are no universal rights?
There you go again putting words in our moths.
You are obviously saying it, since you believe in legislation. If you believe in positive gun laws you don't believe in universal rights. The paradox is that your legislation is just instrumental then and has nothing to do with justice or moral.
Exactly. People don't seem to understand that their beliefs have absolutely no effect on the physical world. Reality is reality. Our governments no longer serve us, so we are in danger. End of story.
I wish you'd understand this.
I wish that everyone would understand it. Although the likeliness for that it would happen at all isn't great you are helpless against an armed burglar without a gun. And if you happen to have a gun and defend yourself successfully with it, the court might send you to prison for it, even if the gun is perfectly legal, because the cunts in court don't care about the fact that you were attacked to begin with.
That is a fact that you really can't argue against at all. You can't legally defend yourself with a gun in Sweden outside your own property, and even in your own bedroom you can't be sure that you might defend yourself and not be punished for it, because your right to defend yourself ("right" according to the law that is) isn't guaranteed even in your own home. In some peculiar way the Swedish legislators think that a criminal's life should be as sacred as yours, even when he attacks you in your own bedroom in the middle of the night. And it is ridiculously hard to legally get a gun to start with, except a rifle.
Is this the way you think it should be?
You keep presenting your opinions and beliefs as if they were facts. This is going nowhere.
Except for the last sentence that is not an opinion but a fact. That is how the Swedish gun law and law about self-defence function in practice, which you are very well aware of. The Rödeby case was exceptional in the respect that a victim who defended himself and killed one aggressor and hurt another very seriously actually didn't go to jail. Usually he would have done that.
In Texas or Colorado he wouldn't even have been prosecuted. That is also a fact.
The last sentence in your post is "Is this the way you think it should be?"
Erm. A fact?
The two last sentences, then, but you know that it is like this. It is almost impossible to legally protect yourself against criminals in Sweden. Why are you pretending that it isn't?
I'm not. I'm disagreeing with you. Very different, but I don't think it's something you will grasp any time soon.
OK. Say that a stalker were after you. You considered him dangerous. In America you go and buy a gun, so you can defend yourself. In Sweden you do what?
I love it how you change, or rather *miss*, the subject.
Didn't you just say that I am wrong when I say that it's almost impossible to legally defend yourself in Sweden?
-
This is fun but also a bit boring because it doesn't actually go anywhere. It's a bit like stealing candy from a baby because it's so bloody easy but nevertheless leaves you feeling a bit guilty.
-
We are all born equal, man.
Prove it.
Because we can all think. BURRRNNNN
Fail.
Says you. :dunno:
-
Logically something must either exist or not exist. Either rights exist and are universal/natural or they don't.
Another logical fallacy.
No. Rights can't both exist and not exist, just like there can and can't be a moon at the same time.
It's funny how you are constantly contradicting yourself. "Rights" and "universal rights" are two different things. "No rights" is a third, btw, and immediately crashes your little binary theory.
This is just semantics. We can call it just "rights". They either exist or they don't, just like a house, a planet, an apple or anything.
-
Universal rights aren't the only kind of rights.
Yes, they are. This is what both you and odeon fail to understand. This is pure logic. The world above quantum level works according to binary logic. It is either 0 or 1, just like a computer. There are either universal rights or no rights at all. It can't be both and it can't be anything else.
Who the hell is saying there are no universal rights?
There you go again putting words in our moths.
You are obviously saying it, since you believe in legislation. If you believe in positive gun laws you don't believe in universal rights. The paradox is that your legislation is just instrumental then and has nothing to do with justice or moral.
*I* am saying that there are no universal rights. There are no universal obligations either, for that matter.
Your comment re the world above quantum level is quite bizarre, btw.
Yes, there are universal rights. Doesn't everyone have a right to not be enslaved? Doesn't everyone have a right to life? If not, who doesn't have these rights?
Do you believe that all people are created equal? If so, then why does this not lead to the premise that all people have certain rights by virtue of being people?
No, and no.
They probably should be, at least in the world we live in, but there are plenty of places where none of it is true, which means none of your "rights" is "universal".
You are confusing what you want with what actually is.
Note that I'm not arguing against the concept, just its current applicability. It also amuses me to think that someone would somehow put "carrying a firearm" next to "born equal". I know the former is thought to be a prerequisite for the other in the US, but that's not how the whole world sees it, thus immediately nullifying the "universal" part.
Here's how I see it. People have certain rights just by virtue of being born. This doesn't depend on legislation of the whims of the local government; these rights exist regardless of them. All people are created equal; therefore, all are born with certain rights. These include the right to life and the right to liberty.
If you don't believe this, consider the case where there exists some person who doesn't have these rights. Let's say that there's no legislation to enforce the right to life. Is it then acceptable for me to murder that person? Under your system, it must be. If rights extend from legislation, and there is no legislation to protect the right to life, then why not accept murder? I say that murder is wrong, regardless of who the victim is and what local legislation says about the subject.
As far as "universal" goes, this system also doesn't change depending on anyone's opinion. You have certain rights, even if you don't acknowledge them. Among these are the right to bear arms, to protect yourself and to provide for your family. Here's a question for you. Why is "rights" in quotes? Do you not acknowledge that everyone on the planet has a right to life? Do you think that some people somewhere deserve to be enslaved? If so, who are these people?
As to whether I'm confusing what I want with what is, I could ask you the same question in regards to my position. Your last paragraph seems to point out, in your mind, the bizarre nature of the right to bear arms. As far as rights go, the fact that all people are born equal is fundamental to the right to bear arms, not the other way around. I suspect that you already know this. You've chosen to set up a straw man to point out what you see as an absurdity, instead of presenting a rational argument. I don't support the Second Amendment because of tradition, or out of religious adherence to the Constitution. I support the Second Amendment because I have examined the issue and I have concluded that legalized gun ownership is essential for the preservation of liberty. If you choose to believe something different, fine. However, it's possible for a completely rational culture to choose gun ownership.
Yes, I know that America isn't that completely rational culture. :hahaha:
Prove the "universal" bit to me.
You may think that it stands to reason that people are born equal, and it is a nice, idealistic concept, wonderfully, blissfully moral in its utter naivety.
̈́
Hell, you may even postulate such a thing, and it's a perfectly acceptable viewpoint when arguing philosophy, but it's a far stretch from an absolute, universally proven "right". It speaks to your sense of justice and fairness, but seriously, mate, since when was the universe fair and just, or even relevant to our little planet in the grand scheme of things?
It always amazes me to see how people may reject the notion of a supreme being while confidently quoting "universal" rights. The fact is that the universe is neither just nor fair. It's indifferent and an insignificant collection of microbes won't magically acquire special rights in it because there are no special rights to be had.
OK, you don't believe in rights. Why are you demanding legislation about guns - and other things - then? Rights don't exist. Just accept that everything is as it is, then. But you don't.
The "universal" rights you are speaking of and legislation are two very different things. I guess you just can't see the difference.
Yes, they are very different. Legislation was made up by someone completely arbitrary and for his own sake. It has nothing to do with rights or justice.
You fail to see that if you don't believe in rights, it would be suitable not to claim any, as you are speaking against yourself when claiming something that you are saying is non-existent.
I don't believe in universal rights. I don't believe that universal rights are the same as rights, sans the universal part. I don't believe that the universe magically grants us *any* rights.
If you acknowledge that rights and legislations are two different things, why do you post things like
OK, you don't believe in rights. Why are you demanding legislation about guns - and other things - then? Rights don't exist. Just accept that everything is as it is, then. But you don't.
-
This is fun but also a bit boring because it doesn't actually go anywhere. It's a bit like stealing candy from a baby because it's so bloody easy but nevertheless leaves you feeling a bit guilty.
I don't see the fun at all. How can it be a triumph that you are unable to defend yourself from both "ordinary" criminals as well as the state?
And you are not winning any debate either. You do as you always do when it comes to something that you are obsessed with: claiming that you are right and your opponents are wrong (for some reason you can never prove this but must always belittle your opponents by twisting words, inserting smilies etc).
-
We are all born equal, man.
Prove it.
Because we can all think. BURRRNNNN
Fail.
Says you. :dunno:
Says me, yes. Because you might as well have said "because the sky is blue". /shrug
-
This is fun but also a bit boring because it doesn't actually go anywhere. It's a bit like stealing candy from a baby because it's so bloody easy but nevertheless leaves you feeling a bit guilty.
LOL^ You'd make a good American president.
(http://raymondpronk.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/obama-narcissist-in-chief1.jpg?w=816&h=1056)
-
Logically something must either exist or not exist. Either rights exist and are universal/natural or they don't.
Another logical fallacy.
No. Rights can't both exist and not exist, just like there can and can't be a moon at the same time.
It's funny how you are constantly contradicting yourself. "Rights" and "universal rights" are two different things. "No rights" is a third, btw, and immediately crashes your little binary theory.
This is just semantics. We can call it just "rights". They either exist or they don't, just like a house, a planet, an apple or anything.
I realise the semantics tend to get in the way of your little argument, but these are important distinctions. Again, I know structuralism will favour a binary POV but I'd love to see you prove that a) rights exist and b) they are always universal.
-
I don't believe in universal rights. I don't believe that universal rights are the same as rights, sans the universal part. I don't believe that the universe magically grants us *any* rights.
There can't be any rights but universal rights. You can't create them. A right that isn't a universal right is no right, because a right is either immanent or doesn't exist.
If you acknowledge that rights and legislations are two different things, why do you post things like
OK, you don't believe in rights. Why are you demanding legislation about guns - and other things - then? Rights don't exist. Just accept that everything is as it is, then. But you don't.
You can't create rights by legislation, that is correct. That is what I'm telling you.
-
This is fun but also a bit boring because it doesn't actually go anywhere. It's a bit like stealing candy from a baby because it's so bloody easy but nevertheless leaves you feeling a bit guilty.
I don't see the fun at all. How can it be a triumph that you are unable to defend yourself from both "ordinary" criminals as well as the state?
And you are not winning any debate either. You do as you always do when it comes to something that you are obsessed with: claiming that you are right and your opponents are wrong (for some reason you can never prove this but must always belittle your opponents by twisting words, inserting smilies etc).
Actually I'm winning the argument by arguing. Your method seems to be to put words in my mouth.
Hint: it isn't working.
-
This is fun but also a bit boring because it doesn't actually go anywhere. It's a bit like stealing candy from a baby because it's so bloody easy but nevertheless leaves you feeling a bit guilty.
LOL^ You'd make a good American president.
(http://raymondpronk.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/obama-narcissist-in-chief1.jpg?w=816&h=1056)
Careful. You are letting your obsessions take over.
-
Logically something must either exist or not exist. Either rights exist and are universal/natural or they don't.
Another logical fallacy.
No. Rights can't both exist and not exist, just like there can and can't be a moon at the same time.
It's funny how you are constantly contradicting yourself. "Rights" and "universal rights" are two different things. "No rights" is a third, btw, and immediately crashes your little binary theory.
This is just semantics. We can call it just "rights". They either exist or they don't, just like a house, a planet, an apple or anything.
I realise the semantics tend to get in the way of your little argument, but these are important distinctions. Again, I know structuralism will favour a binary POV but I'd love to see you prove that a) rights exist and b) they are always universal.
I can't prove it but I don't have to either. It must simply be postulated.
The really absurd thing is that you are denying the existence of universal rights and at the same demanding (some of) them (although you don't understand that they must be universal but think that they can be created somehow, which they can't).
-
This is fun but also a bit boring because it doesn't actually go anywhere. It's a bit like stealing candy from a baby because it's so bloody easy but nevertheless leaves you feeling a bit guilty.
I don't see the fun at all. How can it be a triumph that you are unable to defend yourself from both "ordinary" criminals as well as the state?
And you are not winning any debate either. You do as you always do when it comes to something that you are obsessed with: claiming that you are right and your opponents are wrong (for some reason you can never prove this but must always belittle your opponents by twisting words, inserting smilies etc).
Actually I'm winning the argument by stating things that occur to me as fact. Your method seems to be to put words in my mouth. (by which I mean disagreeing with me.)
Hint: I'm getting cranky. I'm on my period.
Fixed.
-
There can't be any rights but universal rights. You can't create them. A right that isn't a universal right is no right, because a right is either immanent or doesn't exist.
This is simply postulating something I disagree with. I can see that it is useful to you because without it, everything you say simply falls apart, but I have yet to see you attempt to prove it.
Good luck with that, btw. I won't hold my breath.
-
The really absurd thing is that you are denying the existence of universal rights and at the same demanding (some of) them (although you don't understand that they must be universal but think that they can be created somehow, which they can't).
Huh? wanna rephrase that?
-
This is fun but also a bit boring because it doesn't actually go anywhere. It's a bit like stealing candy from a baby because it's so bloody easy but nevertheless leaves you feeling a bit guilty.
LOL^ You'd make a good American president.
(http://raymondpronk.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/obama-narcissist-in-chief1.jpg?w=816&h=1056)
Careful. You are letting your obsessions take over.
Yeah, when someone brings up something that fits but makes me uncomfortable, I also call them obsessed. All the time.
-
This is fun but also a bit boring because it doesn't actually go anywhere. It's a bit like stealing candy from a baby because it's so bloody easy but nevertheless leaves you feeling a bit guilty.
I don't see the fun at all. How can it be a triumph that you are unable to defend yourself from both "ordinary" criminals as well as the state?
And you are not winning any debate either. You do as you always do when it comes to something that you are obsessed with: claiming that you are right and your opponents are wrong (for some reason you can never prove this but must always belittle your opponents by twisting words, inserting smilies etc).
Actually I'm winning the argument by stating things that occur to me as fact. Your method seems to be to put words in my mouth. (by which I mean disagreeing with me.)
Hint: I'm getting cranky. I'm on my period.
Fixed.
It bothers you that you can't find an actual argument to combat mine with, doesn't it? :hahaha:
-
I can't prove it but I don't have to either. It must simply be postulated.
Almost forgot this little gem. It's fucking hilarious.
-
This is fun but also a bit boring because it doesn't actually go anywhere. It's a bit like stealing candy from a baby because it's so bloody easy but nevertheless leaves you feeling a bit guilty.
I don't see the fun at all. How can it be a triumph that you are unable to defend yourself from both "ordinary" criminals as well as the state?
And you are not winning any debate either. You do as you always do when it comes to something that you are obsessed with: claiming that you are right and your opponents are wrong (for some reason you can never prove this but must always belittle your opponents by twisting words, inserting smilies etc).
Actually I'm winning the argument by stating things that occur to me as fact. Your method seems to be to put words in my mouth. (by which I mean disagreeing with me.)
Hint: I'm getting cranky. I'm on my period.
Fixed.
It bothers you that you can't find an actual argument to combat mine with, doesn't it? :hahaha:
I just did. you want to take the catty approach? I know how to do that, too. :laugh:
-
Yeah, when someone brings up something that fits but makes me uncomfortable, I also call them obsessed. All the time.
I already know you are uncomfortable. It shows.
-
There can't be any rights but universal rights. You can't create them. A right that isn't a universal right is no right, because a right is either immanent or doesn't exist.
This is simply postulating something I disagree with. I can see that it is useful to you because without it, everything you say simply falls apart, but I have yet to see you attempt to prove it.
Good luck with that, btw. I won't hold my breath.
It's amazing that you with your brilliant brain must always resort to belittling and insulting.
Tell me how you create a right. By legislating and making the cops and courts implement the law in question? But that isn't creating a right.
-
This is fun but also a bit boring because it doesn't actually go anywhere. It's a bit like stealing candy from a baby because it's so bloody easy but nevertheless leaves you feeling a bit guilty.
I don't see the fun at all. How can it be a triumph that you are unable to defend yourself from both "ordinary" criminals as well as the state?
And you are not winning any debate either. You do as you always do when it comes to something that you are obsessed with: claiming that you are right and your opponents are wrong (for some reason you can never prove this but must always belittle your opponents by twisting words, inserting smilies etc).
Actually I'm winning the argument by stating things that occur to me as fact. Your method seems to be to put words in my mouth. (by which I mean disagreeing with me.)
Hint: I'm getting cranky. I'm on my period.
Fixed.
It bothers you that you can't find an actual argument to combat mine with, doesn't it? :hahaha:
I just did. you want to take the catty approach? I know how to do that, too. :laugh:
You would have done it if you knew how.
-
This is fun but also a bit boring because it doesn't actually go anywhere. It's a bit like stealing candy from a baby because it's so bloody easy but nevertheless leaves you feeling a bit guilty.
I don't see the fun at all. How can it be a triumph that you are unable to defend yourself from both "ordinary" criminals as well as the state?
And you are not winning any debate either. You do as you always do when it comes to something that you are obsessed with: claiming that you are right and your opponents are wrong (for some reason you can never prove this but must always belittle your opponents by twisting words, inserting smilies etc).
Actually I'm winning the argument by stating things that occur to me as fact. Your method seems to be to put words in my mouth. (by which I mean disagreeing with me.)
Hint: I'm getting cranky. I'm on my period.
Fixed.
It bothers you that you can't find an actual argument to combat mine with, doesn't it? :hahaha:
I just did. you want to take the catty approach? I know how to do that, too. :laugh:
You would have done it if you knew how.
I've been doing it this whole time. I've repeatedly owned the shit out of you. :hahaha: :zoinks:
-
The really absurd thing is that you are denying the existence of universal rights and at the same demanding (some of) them (although you don't understand that they must be universal but think that they can be created somehow, which they can't).
Huh? wanna rephrase that?
You are denying that rights exist and at the same time claiming that they exist and that you can create them.
-
still waiting for you to back up this:
I can almost smell your contempt for us. Well fuck you too.
-
I can't prove it but I don't have to either. It must simply be postulated.
Almost forgot this little gem. It's fucking hilarious.
It's nothing rare at all when it comes to philosophy. But in this case it's logically so that they either exist or don't exist, just like anything else. If they don't exist, it is not in human power to create them.
-
The really absurd thing is that you are denying the existence of universal rights and at the same demanding (some of) them (although you don't understand that they must be universal but think that they can be created somehow, which they can't).
Huh? wanna rephrase that?
You are denying that rights exist and at the same time claiming that they exist and that you can create them.
Narcassism, dude. Reality responds to his feelings and comfort.
still waiting for you to back up this:
I can almost smell your contempt for us. Well fuck you too.
I already did. Its in the quote I used to make that statement.
-
There can't be any rights but universal rights. You can't create them. A right that isn't a universal right is no right, because a right is either immanent or doesn't exist.
This is simply postulating something I disagree with. I can see that it is useful to you because without it, everything you say simply falls apart, but I have yet to see you attempt to prove it.
Good luck with that, btw. I won't hold my breath.
It's amazing that you with your brilliant brain must always resort to belittling and insulting.
Tell me how you create a right. By legislating and making the cops and courts implement the law in question? But that isn't creating a right.
You are the one talking about rights. I'm the one not believing in universal ones but stating that they are not the same as rights sans that universal part. AFAIK, I have not discussed rights other than disagreeing with your definition of them. I have certainly not mixed "rights" and legislation". Yet you keep putting words in my mouth.
Tell me why I should base anything I say on what you tried to put in my mouth.
-
This is fun but also a bit boring because it doesn't actually go anywhere. It's a bit like stealing candy from a baby because it's so bloody easy but nevertheless leaves you feeling a bit guilty.
I don't see the fun at all. How can it be a triumph that you are unable to defend yourself from both "ordinary" criminals as well as the state?
And you are not winning any debate either. You do as you always do when it comes to something that you are obsessed with: claiming that you are right and your opponents are wrong (for some reason you can never prove this but must always belittle your opponents by twisting words, inserting smilies etc).
Actually I'm winning the argument by stating things that occur to me as fact. Your method seems to be to put words in my mouth. (by which I mean disagreeing with me.)
Hint: I'm getting cranky. I'm on my period.
Fixed.
It bothers you that you can't find an actual argument to combat mine with, doesn't it? :hahaha:
I just did. you want to take the catty approach? I know how to do that, too. :laugh:
You would have done it if you knew how.
I've been doing it this whole time. I've repeatedly owned the shit out of you. :hahaha: :zoinks:
:LMAO:
-
The really absurd thing is that you are denying the existence of universal rights and at the same demanding (some of) them (although you don't understand that they must be universal but think that they can be created somehow, which they can't).
Huh? wanna rephrase that?
You are denying that rights exist and at the same time claiming that they exist and that you can create them.
Er, no.
-
still waiting for you to back up this:
I can almost smell your contempt for us. Well fuck you too.
If you don't have a feeling of superiority, why are you belittling people all the time? Just because you own this board and score high on an IQ test doesn't mean that you are always right about everything.
You always treat people with contempt when it comes to some of your "holy cows".
-
I can't prove it but I don't have to either. It must simply be postulated.
Almost forgot this little gem. It's fucking hilarious.
It's nothing rare at all when it comes to philosophy. But in this case it's logically so that they either exist or don't exist, just like anything else. If they don't exist, it is not in human power to create them.
Er, no.
You say the situation is binary. I say it's not and have already given you an example that gives three options. It's not enough to postulate something, even in philosophy, without building on it, without disproving opposing viewpoints by expanding on the original postulation.
-
still waiting for you to back up this:
I can almost smell your contempt for us. Well fuck you too.
I already did. Its in the quote I used to make that statement.
Which I contested.
Fucking weak, Rage. Shows me that you aren't man enough to back up your words. Don't mistake my contempt for your words with a contempt for the country in which you live.
-
I can't prove it but I don't have to either. It must simply be postulated.
Almost forgot this little gem. It's fucking hilarious.
It's nothing rare at all when it comes to philosophy. But in this case it's logically so that they either exist or don't exist, just like anything else. If they don't exist, it is not in human power to create them.
Er, no.
You say the situation is binary. I say it's not and have already given you an example that gives three options. It's not enough to postulate something, even in philosophy, without building on it, without disproving opposing viewpoints by expanding on the original postulation.
If rights exist, how would they exist if they are not immanent?
But if you say with absolute certainty that they don't exist and can't be created I don't understand why you want legislation. Legislation is to pretend that rights exist and are somehow connected to the laws, but you are not saying that either.
-
still waiting for you to back up this:
I can almost smell your contempt for us. Well fuck you too.
I already did. Its in the quote I used to make that statement.
Which I contested.
Fucking weak, Rage. Shows me that you aren't man enough to back up your words. Don't mistake my contempt for your words with a contempt for the country in which you live.
There should be contempt for the US but not for the 2nd Amendment. That is something that is 100% right.
-
still waiting for you to back up this:
I can almost smell your contempt for us. Well fuck you too.
If you don't have a feeling of superiority, why are you belittling people all the time? Just because you own this board and score high on an IQ test doesn't mean that you are always right about everything.
You always treat people with contempt when it comes to some of your "holy cows".
Show me where the contempt is, Lit.
Here's the thing: I tend to win arguments by *arguing*. I don't buy the "argument" where you or Rage or someone else puts words in my mouth, where you claim to know what i think, that I somehow delude myself, that I pretend something different than what I actually believe to be right. I think that's where you frequently lose your argument because instead of producing an opposing viewpoint, you belittle mine by claiming that it's not what I'm saying at all, that I'm only *pretending*.
I am difficult to argue against, I know. I won't be making apologies for my intelligence or that number I got in a test, I simply make my points in any way I know of. If you want a serious argument with me, take your own argument seriously.
Or be prepared for me getting back at you using your own game.
In other words, don't belittle me and I won't belittle you. Treat me as you want to be treated. Pot kettle black and all that.
-
I can take another example of how you just "proclaim" yourself to be right. There was a discussion about suicide. You seem to think that suicide is wrong. Pig said that if life has a negative value and death has the value 0, suicide is better than to live. This is extremely simple to understand. Yet you said that that was wrong, not because Pig was reasoning in an illogical way but simply because you are against people committing suicide.
-
If rights exist, how would they exist if they are not immanent?
Immanence is basically the theory of divine presence in philosophy, IIRC. You can postulate divinity on any number of levels, from the strictly local (such as a typical Roman emperor ) to the regional (such as Greek gods in the Roman world) to the universal.
See how this works? A "right" can easily be defined in a context and still be outside mere legislation, if you choose to argue from that viewpoint, but does not have to be universal.
Now, you can postulate that some rights are universal instead of regional or local or whatever other definition there might be (including that there are none, btw), but if you do that, you'd better build consistency around what you postulate because it's not something that is obvious.
And never mind that you start from the theory of divine presence when the people you are talking to tend to reject that presence.
-
If rights exist, how would they exist if they are not immanent?
Immanence is basically the theory of divine presence in philosophy, IIRC. You can postulate divinity on any number of levels, from the strictly local (such as a typical Roman emperor ) to the regional (such as Greek gods in the Roman world) to the universal.
See how this works? A "right" can easily be defined in a context and still be outside mere legislation, if you choose to argue from that viewpoint, but does not have to be universal.
Now, you can postulate that some rights are universal instead of regional or local or whatever other definition there might be (including that there are none, btw), but if you do that, you'd better build consistency around what you postulate because it's not something that is obvious.
And never mind that you start from the theory of divine presence when the people you are talking to tend to reject that presence.
That's not modern philosophy. That is how Plato and Aristoteles etc. argued. Those arguments are hardly looked upon as valid today.
-
I can take another example of how you just "proclaim" yourself to be right. There was a discussion about suicide. You seem to think that suicide is wrong. Pig said that if life has a negative value and death has the value 0, suicide is better than to live. This is extremely simple to understand. Yet you said that that was wrong, not because Pig was reasoning in an illogical way but simply because you are against people committing suicide.
Links, please. I honestly don't recognise this.
But just to point it out: I argue my viewpoints, whatever they may be. I do not claim to be universally right (note the use of the word "universal" here), and I doubt most other here claim to be either. But I do argue.
There's an implied "IMHO" with most of my opinion pieces here, in other words, the same as with most other people's posts. Should I start including that in my posts?
I think most people will realise this. Let me know if that is unclear.
-
If rights exist, how would they exist if they are not immanent?
Immanence is basically the theory of divine presence in philosophy, IIRC. You can postulate divinity on any number of levels, from the strictly local (such as a typical Roman emperor ) to the regional (such as Greek gods in the Roman world) to the universal.
See how this works? A "right" can easily be defined in a context and still be outside mere legislation, if you choose to argue from that viewpoint, but does not have to be universal.
Now, you can postulate that some rights are universal instead of regional or local or whatever other definition there might be (including that there are none, btw), but if you do that, you'd better build consistency around what you postulate because it's not something that is obvious.
And never mind that you start from the theory of divine presence when the people you are talking to tend to reject that presence.
That's not modern philosophy. That is how Plato and Aristoteles etc. argued. Those arguments are hardly looked upon as valid today.
Then don't use "immanent".
-
I can take another example of how you just "proclaim" yourself to be right. There was a discussion about suicide. You seem to think that suicide is wrong. Pig said that if life has a negative value and death has the value 0, suicide is better than to live. This is extremely simple to understand. Yet you said that that was wrong, not because Pig was reasoning in an illogical way but simply because you are against people committing suicide.
Links, please. I honestly don't recognise this.
But just to point it out: I argue my viewpoints, whatever they may be. I do not claim to be universally right (note the use of the word "universal" here), and I doubt most other here claim to be either. But I do argue.
There's an implied "IMHO" with most of my opinion pieces here, in other words, the same as with most other people's posts. Should I start including that in my posts?
I think most people will realise this. Let me know if that is unclear.
Some people suffer from mental problems, especially depression, to an extent comparable with excruciating physical illness.
If they always feel unhappy then feeling nothing would be an improvement. By killing themselves they improve their emotional state.
No, they *end* their emotional state.
Let's say emotions are like positive and negative values. Misery is negative, happiness is positive, and no-emotion is zero. Going from a negative value to zero is a positive.
I guess. ??? That's how I've always thought of it, anyway.
I don't buy that. Between good and bad emotions should be those that are neither good or bad, but that still are emotions.
Suicide (http://www.intensitysquared.com/index.php/topic,19166.msg859047.html#msg859047)
-
If rights exist, how would they exist if they are not immanent?
Immanence is basically the theory of divine presence in philosophy, IIRC. You can postulate divinity on any number of levels, from the strictly local (such as a typical Roman emperor ) to the regional (such as Greek gods in the Roman world) to the universal.
See how this works? A "right" can easily be defined in a context and still be outside mere legislation, if you choose to argue from that viewpoint, but does not have to be universal.
Now, you can postulate that some rights are universal instead of regional or local or whatever other definition there might be (including that there are none, btw), but if you do that, you'd better build consistency around what you postulate because it's not something that is obvious.
And never mind that you start from the theory of divine presence when the people you are talking to tend to reject that presence.
That's not modern philosophy. That is how Plato and Aristoteles etc. argued. Those arguments are hardly looked upon as valid today.
Then don't use "immanent".
Splitting hairs again. I used one word from an outdated terminology, and because of that you demand that I accept everything that has to do with the outdated philosophy that it relates to.
But the logical fact that something either exists or deosn't is in accordance with modern philosophy.
-
I can take another example of how you just "proclaim" yourself to be right. There was a discussion about suicide. You seem to think that suicide is wrong. Pig said that if life has a negative value and death has the value 0, suicide is better than to live. This is extremely simple to understand. Yet you said that that was wrong, not because Pig was reasoning in an illogical way but simply because you are against people committing suicide.
Links, please. I honestly don't recognise this.
But just to point it out: I argue my viewpoints, whatever they may be. I do not claim to be universally right (note the use of the word "universal" here), and I doubt most other here claim to be either. But I do argue.
There's an implied "IMHO" with most of my opinion pieces here, in other words, the same as with most other people's posts. Should I start including that in my posts?
I think most people will realise this. Let me know if that is unclear.
Some people suffer from mental problems, especially depression, to an extent comparable with excruciating physical illness.
If they always feel unhappy then feeling nothing would be an improvement. By killing themselves they improve their emotional state.
No, they *end* their emotional state.
Let's say emotions are like positive and negative values. Misery is negative, happiness is positive, and no-emotion is zero. Going from a negative value to zero is a positive.
I guess. ??? That's how I've always thought of it, anyway.
I don't buy that. Between good and bad emotions should be those that are neither good or bad, but that still are emotions.
Suicide (http://www.intensitysquared.com/index.php/topic,19166.msg859047.html#msg859047)
Proving what, exactly? That I think there are emotions that are neither good nor bad? That he was reading too much into the word "selfish"?
And how does any of this prove that I am against suicide? Because I think it's ultimately selfish?
-
I can take another example of how you just "proclaim" yourself to be right. There was a discussion about suicide. You seem to think that suicide is wrong. Pig said that if life has a negative value and death has the value 0, suicide is better than to live. This is extremely simple to understand. Yet you said that that was wrong, not because Pig was reasoning in an illogical way but simply because you are against people committing suicide.
Links, please. I honestly don't recognise this.
But just to point it out: I argue my viewpoints, whatever they may be. I do not claim to be universally right (note the use of the word "universal" here), and I doubt most other here claim to be either. But I do argue.
There's an implied "IMHO" with most of my opinion pieces here, in other words, the same as with most other people's posts. Should I start including that in my posts?
I think most people will realise this. Let me know if that is unclear.
Some people suffer from mental problems, especially depression, to an extent comparable with excruciating physical illness.
If they always feel unhappy then feeling nothing would be an improvement. By killing themselves they improve their emotional state.
No, they *end* their emotional state.
Let's say emotions are like positive and negative values. Misery is negative, happiness is positive, and no-emotion is zero. Going from a negative value to zero is a positive.
I guess. ??? That's how I've always thought of it, anyway.
I don't buy that. Between good and bad emotions should be those that are neither good or bad, but that still are emotions.
Suicide (http://www.intensitysquared.com/index.php/topic,19166.msg859047.html#msg859047)
Proving what, exactly? That I think there are emotions that are neither good nor bad? That he was reading too much into the word "selfish"?
And how does any of this prove that I am against suicide? Because I think it's ultimately selfish?
If life has a negative value, death means 0 and is thus more worth than life. How is that hard to understand?
I remember that you once said that it wasn't wrong that suicidal people were taken into psychiatric ward. Don't remember which thread now.
-
If rights exist, how would they exist if they are not immanent?
Immanence is basically the theory of divine presence in philosophy, IIRC. You can postulate divinity on any number of levels, from the strictly local (such as a typical Roman emperor ) to the regional (such as Greek gods in the Roman world) to the universal.
See how this works? A "right" can easily be defined in a context and still be outside mere legislation, if you choose to argue from that viewpoint, but does not have to be universal.
Now, you can postulate that some rights are universal instead of regional or local or whatever other definition there might be (including that there are none, btw), but if you do that, you'd better build consistency around what you postulate because it's not something that is obvious.
And never mind that you start from the theory of divine presence when the people you are talking to tend to reject that presence.
That's not modern philosophy. That is how Plato and Aristoteles etc. argued. Those arguments are hardly looked upon as valid today.
Then don't use "immanent".
Splitting hairs again. I used one word from an outdated terminology, and because of that you demand that I accept everything that has to do with the outdated philosophy that it relates to.
But the logical fact that something either exists or deosn't is in accordance with modern philosophy.
You used a *key* word, practically the definition, actually. But no, I don't require you to accept everything that the theory of divine presence brings with it. I do want you to consider context, however, because while you claim everything to be black and white, I wish to bring nuances into the equation. Context. Immanence is useful from a philosophical point of view because it can be used to deconstruct binary opposition. I would argue that since about 90% of the earth's population believes in some kind of deity, the concept is not outdated.
BTW, a common objection to binary opposition is its deconstruction in things like modern gender theory. Do you accept the new German gender legislation?
-
If rights exist, how would they exist if they are not immanent?
Immanence is basically the theory of divine presence in philosophy, IIRC. You can postulate divinity on any number of levels, from the strictly local (such as a typical Roman emperor ) to the regional (such as Greek gods in the Roman world) to the universal.
See how this works? A "right" can easily be defined in a context and still be outside mere legislation, if you choose to argue from that viewpoint, but does not have to be universal.
Now, you can postulate that some rights are universal instead of regional or local or whatever other definition there might be (including that there are none, btw), but if you do that, you'd better build consistency around what you postulate because it's not something that is obvious.
And never mind that you start from the theory of divine presence when the people you are talking to tend to reject that presence.
That's not modern philosophy. That is how Plato and Aristoteles etc. argued. Those arguments are hardly looked upon as valid today.
Then don't use "immanent".
Splitting hairs again. I used one word from an outdated terminology, and because of that you demand that I accept everything that has to do with the outdated philosophy that it relates to.
But the logical fact that something either exists or deosn't is in accordance with modern philosophy.
You used a *key* word, practically the definition, actually. But no, I don't require you to accept everything that the theory of divine presence brings with it. I do want you to consider context, however, because while you claim everything to be black and white, I wish to bring nuances into the equation. Context. Immanence is useful from a philosophical point of view because it can be used to deconstruct binary opposition. I would argue that since about 90% of the earth's population believes in some kind of deity, the concept is not outdated.
BTW, a common objection to binary opposition is its deconstruction in things like modern gender theory. Do you accept the new German gender legislation?
Well, then I should use some other terminology.
I know nothing about the new German law. I'm not interested in modern gender theory.
-
still waiting for you to back up this:
I can almost smell your contempt for us. Well fuck you too.
I already did. Its in the quote I used to make that statement.
Which I contested.
Fucking weak, Rage. Shows me that you aren't man enough to back up your words. Don't mistake my contempt for your words with a contempt for the country in which you live.
I'm not wrong on the grounds that you disagree with me. And I did not have a problem with your contempt for my words, so cut the politics ok? Lets play ball like men. You were making derogatory statements about my country and its laws. Do you deny this?
-
No. Rights can't both exist and not exist, just like there can and can't be a moon at the same time.
Im not replying to all this properly yet but skimming thru before I go to bed
just seen this though and...
what?
-
No. Rights can't both exist and not exist, just like there can and can't be a moon at the same time.
Im not replying to all this properly yet but skimming thru before I go to bed
just seen this though and...
what?
I think that's what Lit was trying to say. "what?"
-
Ah ok thanks, I probably should read this through properly
-
By the way: if rights don't exist, the state doesn't have them either. The only "right" that the state has is that it has superior firepower and organisation.
So if rights exist, they belong to individuals, not states. If they don't exist, the state is likewise wrong.
Especially considering this NSA shit, faked "war on terror" etc it's unbelievable that you are so narrow-minded that you think that anything could be worse than the state.
And Somalia isn't an anarchy, because those living there don't have equal firepower and organisation. Somalia is on the contrary the example of everything that is wrong with a state, because that never shows as clearly as when a state collapses.
-
still waiting for you to back up this:
I can almost smell your contempt for us. Well fuck you too.
I already did. Its in the quote I used to make that statement.
Which I contested.
Fucking weak, Rage. Shows me that you aren't man enough to back up your words. Don't mistake my contempt for your words with a contempt for the country in which you live.
I'm not wrong on the grounds that you disagree with me. And I did not have a problem with your contempt for my words, so cut the politics ok? Lets play ball like men. You were making derogatory statements about my country and its laws. Do you deny this?
Back it up or shut up.
-
No. Rights can't both exist and not exist, just like there can and can't be a moon at the same time.
Im not replying to all this properly yet but skimming thru before I go to bed
just seen this though and...
what?
I think that's what Lit was trying to say. "what?"
Lit got it wrong, more than once, so it's understandable that he says "what?"
I have tried to explain but I'm not getting through to him. Hence his rather nonsensical post, above.
-
By the way: if rights don't exist, the state doesn't have them either. The only "right" that the state has is that it has superior firepower and organisation.
That's correct. If rights do not exist, nobody has them. You can't have something that does not exist.
So if rights exist, they belong to individuals, not states. If they don't exist, the state is likewise wrong.
The first sentence is far from obvious. Prove it. The second is just irrelevant.
You are mixing things and the result is mostly incoherent.
Especially considering this NSA shit, faked "war on terror" etc it's unbelievable that you are so narrow-minded that you think that anything could be worse than the state.
I don't think I have attempted to list anything in this manner, i.e. "things worse than a state". This makes very little sense to me.
And Somalia isn't an anarchy, because those living there don't have equal firepower and organisation. Somalia is on the contrary the example of everything that is wrong with a state, because that never shows as clearly as when a state collapses.
What's Somalia doing in this discussion? ???
-
I don't understand why you want to live in an Orwellian nightmare, but it seems obvious that you want to, since you like the gun law, which is one of the things that the state uses to control people.
You focus on a side effect of the gun law, that there are less accidents with guns etc if you have gun control. It's somehow like saying that you save a lot of money if you don't have an insurance.
-
still waiting for you to back up this:
I can almost smell your contempt for us. Well fuck you too.
I already did. Its in the quote I used to make that statement.
Which I contested.
Fucking weak, Rage. Shows me that you aren't man enough to back up your words. Don't mistake my contempt for your words with a contempt for the country in which you live.
I'm not wrong on the grounds that you disagree with me. And I did not have a problem with your contempt for my words, so cut the politics ok? Lets play ball like men. You were making derogatory statements about my country and its laws. Do you deny this?
Back it up or shut up.
It doesn't matter how many times you say that. The answer is, I did. Its in the quote of that post. Now if you were to be an honest man, you could say, "Rage, i'm too lazy to go back in the thread and read that, or give it any thought. Could you be a punkin and do all my work for me? Thankies."
And i'd say, you're a faggot, groan, and do it. :dunno:
-
We are all born equal, man.
Prove it.
Because we can all think. BURRRNNNN
Fail.
some are born with physical deficiencies, some mental. And because all of life depends on a monetary system, very few are born with advantage. Some countries, like India, for instance, you are fated to live your entire life within the caste system.
Not equal
-
Show me where the contempt is, Lit.or rage
Here's the thing: I tend to win arguments by *arguing*. I don't buy the "argument" where you or Rage or someone else puts words in my mouth, where you claim to know what i think, that I somehow delude myself, that I pretend something different than what I actually believe to be right. I think that's where you frequently lose your argument because instead of producing an opposing viewpoint, you belittle mine by claiming that it's not what I'm saying at all, that I'm only *pretending*.
I am difficult to argue against, I know. I won't be making apologies for my intelligence or that number I got in a test, I simply make my points in any way I know of. If you want a serious argument with me, take your own argument seriously.
Or be prepared for me getting back at you using your own game.
In other words, don't belittle me and I won't belittle you. Treat me as you want to be treated. Pot kettle black and all that.
this
-
still waiting for you to back up this:
I can almost smell your contempt for us. Well fuck you too.
I already did. Its in the quote I used to make that statement.
Which I contested.
Fucking weak, Rage. Shows me that you aren't man enough to back up your words. Don't mistake my contempt for your words with a contempt for the country in which you live.
I'm not wrong on the grounds that you disagree with me. And I did not have a problem with your contempt for my words, so cut the politics ok? Lets play ball like men. You were making derogatory statements about my country and its laws. Do you deny this?
Back it up or shut up.
It doesn't matter how many times you say that. The answer is, I did. Its in the quote of that post. Now if you were to be an honest man, you could say, "Rage, i'm too lazy to go back in the thread and read that, or give it any thought. Could you be a punkin and do all my work for me? Thankies."
And i'd say, you're a faggot, groan, and do it. :dunno:
Let's quote your whole post:
You may regard it as a right granted to you in 'merica (fuck yeah) by the constitution, but it is not a universal right.
I can almost smell your contempt for us. Well fuck you too.
By your logic we should have more killings than you, then.
OBJECTION: misleading!
We were always more violent, even with you had guns. Don't even try that shit, man. Also, after guns were banned over there, violent crime skyrocketed.
(http://media2.policymic.com/86f04f29bdeacb1a0525818d2b3a0fc1.png)
Both the UK and Australia instituted strict gun control legislation which basically eliminated private gun ownership in 1997. However, neither countries' legislation had an impact on lowering violent crime, and in both cases violent crime actually went up in the years following the enactment of the gun legislation.
Some gun control advocates, like Piers Morgan, would point towards the lower homicide rate of each country, but the fact of that matter is that both countries enjoyed the same lower homicide rates than the United States even before enacting their gun legislation, making those claims disingenuous.
Moreover, despite the UK having its gun ban, the violent crime rate is still far above that of the United States, and the country has also earned the title of violent crime capital of Europe.
http://www.policymic.com/articles/24124/7-gun-control-facts-that-are-actually-myths (http://www.policymic.com/articles/24124/7-gun-control-facts-that-are-actually-myths)
Also, how many of those dead people in the statistics are career criminals, rapists, thieves, etc?
Where did I insult your country? Where did I "show my contempt" for it? You said:
You were making derogatory statements about my country and its laws. Do you deny this?
And then:
It doesn't matter how many times you say that. The answer is, I did. Its in the quote of that post. Now if you were to be an honest man, you could say, "Rage, i'm too lazy to go back in the thread and read that, or give it any thought. Could you be a punkin and do all my work for me? Thankies."
"Its [sic] in the quote of that post."
Now, if *you* were an honest man, you might finally want to come clean and tell the class what got your knickers in a twist, but no, you apparently couldn't be arsed to do any work. You were personally insulted, somehow, and are starting to realise that you might have misread what I said and meant, but instead of straightening it out with me, you went right on with the internet tough guy routine.
And now it's all this.
Perhaps you wish to refer to my post, the one you replied to:
Driving is a privilege, not a right. Owning a firearm is a right, and all rights must be granted to all citizens. All people are created equal.
This is where we disagree. I don't see owning a firearm as a right any more than I see owning a nuke as a right.
To me, saying that a blind person can't own a gun is like having a citizen pass a test before being allowed to vote. Would letting people with who fail vote lead to a decrease in the quality of elections? Even if so, it wouldn't be sufficient reason to deny them their rights. If there are preconditions on who can exercise universal rights, then they aren't universal rights anymore.
Considering the quality of the voting population, I think you are on to something here.
But seriously, owning a gun is not a universal right. You may regard it as a right granted to you in 'merica (fuck yeah) by the constitution, but it is not a universal right.
If you are talking about my comment re the quality of the voting population, that comment is directed at the entire globe. I have little faith in democracy because I think people in general don't know enough and are too easily swayed.
This opinion is not news; I have stated it before, many times.
And if we are talking about "universal" rights, we are talking about more than just rights applicable on the US.
So again, if you insist on claiming that I showed contempt for your country, prove it. Back up your shit. Or apologise.
C'mon, big boy, show me that you are more than an irresponsible internet tough guy.
-
Oh, and a little afterthought.
We humans misunderstand each other all the time. IRL, here, everywhere. It happens. But if we go the extra mile to straighten things out, explain that no, it's not true, that's not what I meant, maybe we'd end up with one less misunderstanding in the way. But to get there, maybe we should also remember to listen, one extra time.
You said that the contempt was all there, in the quoted post, and then went on to accuse me of being lazy because I asked you to back up what you said. You didn't. And you also conveniently (?) ignored an earlier comment I made:
But I don't want to see the US crumble. It is a nation with problems but it is also a great nation, one that contributes so much more to the world than the nonsense that is usually on the news. Please don't think I dislike your country or your people just because I criticise your constitution.
So again, back up what you said or apologise.
-
But you are talking against yourself. You have said that you have little faith in democracy and that you think that politicians break the laws, are corrupted etc. Or you still mean that this corrupted system with enormous nation states is better than a system with small anarchistic societies with a few hundred persons in each would be? Strange. In a society with 500 members the control is of course much greater than in a nation state with 10 millions or 300 millions or one billion.
-
But you are talking against yourself. You have said that you have little faith in democracy and that you think that politicians break the laws, are corrupted etc. Or you still mean that this corrupted system with enormous nation states is better than a system with small anarchistic societies with a few hundred persons in each would be? Strange. In a society with 500 members the control is of course much greater than in a nation state with 10 millions or 300 millions or one billion.
in this system of small anarchistic societies would none of them war against each other? Would many of them want more land, more people, more control? Would not some of the most psychopathic behaviors get on the top of society by any means necessary in order to control their fellow man?
What would become of all these WMD that are currently owned by the huge nation states? Would we divvy them up equally?
I'm all for the anarchistic society. I just don't know how it would work.
-
But you are talking against yourself. You have said that you have little faith in democracy and that you think that politicians break the laws, are corrupted etc. Or you still mean that this corrupted system with enormous nation states is better than a system with small anarchistic societies with a few hundred persons in each would be? Strange. In a society with 500 members the control is of course much greater than in a nation state with 10 millions or 300 millions or one billion.
in this system of small anarchistic societies would none of them war against each other? Would many of them want more land, more people, more control? Would not some of the most psychopathic behaviors get on the top of society by any means necessary in order to control their fellow man?
What would become of all these WMD that are currently owned by the huge nation states? Would we divvy them up equally?
I'm all for the anarchistic society. I just don't know how it would work.
Well, 99% of all people are not psychopaths. it's just that they are being passive and reluctant to do anything or that they can easily be forced to obey someone stronger. One must learn them some kind of awareness.
In the state most people are passive because the state has a monopoly on violence. In an anarchy there would be no monopoly on violence. Everyone would be equally armed (if needed). That way you would be able to control the psychopaths. When the kings and aristocrats gained power once upon a time, no modern firearms existed, so the one with an army was the one who won, simply.
WMD would be scrapped.
I'm very skeptical myself how to create this system. Once it is created I think it would work very well. The hard thing would be to dissolve the nation states.
-
Odeon, you are only able to produce one statement where you "admit" you don't want to see my country crumble. However peppered throughout this thread, are statements like this.
right granted to you in 'merica (fuck yeah) by the constitution
My country and its laws. You don't have to like the laws that govern our government because you are not a citizen here. I can produce more quotes like this by the way. One statement saying "please don't think I dislike your country or its constitution" doesn't make everything else you say about it non-existent. That's like when some dude says "with all due respect" then says something blatantly disrespectful after it, as if saying with all due respect is a license to fuck with people. :dunno:
-
We are all born equal, man.
Prove it.
Because we can all think. BURRRNNNN
Fail.
some are born with physical deficiencies, some mental. And because all of life depends on a monetary system, very few are born with advantage. Some countries, like India, for instance, you are fated to live your entire life within the caste system.
Not equal
Problem with that:
Caste systems and monetary disadvantages are artificial disadvantages created by other humans to garner profit for themselves. That has nothing to do with natural human rights.
-
I dont see how that quote from odeon suggests he hates amerca
-
He doesn't like their freedoms, though (the ones that they still have).
-
I dont see how that quote from odeon suggests he hates amerca
I didn't say he hated America. I said he holds contempt for my country and its laws. I swear people, this is like pulling teeth.
con·tempt
/kənˈtem(p)t/
noun
noun: contempt
1.
the feeling that a person or a thing is beneath consideration, worthless, or deserving scorn.
"he showed his contempt for his job by doing it very badly"
synonyms: scorn, disdain, disrespect, scornfulness, contemptuousness,
that quote from odeon
I also made it clear that he talked about " 'merica" and "its constitution" several times. I can produce more than just that quote. In fact I also made it clear that he only "admitted" that he didn't hate my country once. I never said he hated my country, I said he felt this about how we do things, and the laws we think are important:
the feeling that a person or a thing is beneath consideration, worthless, or deserving scorn
One more time, I also made it very clear that he doesn't live here early on in the thread, so I seriously doubt he even understands our culture anyway. I don't know why I've made such an effort to try and help him understand to be totally honest. ::)
-
Oh!
-
This should be especially highlighted:
What, then, is legislation? It is an assumption by one man, or body of men, of absolute, irresponsible dominion over all other men whom they call subject to their power. It is the assumption by one man, or body of men, of a right to subject all other men to their will and their service. It is the assumption by one man, or body of men, of a right to abolish outright all the natural rights, all the natural liberty of all other men; to make all other men their slaves; to arbitrarily dictate to all other men what they may, and may not, do; what they may, and may not, have; what they may, and may not, be. It is, in short, the assumption of a right to banish the principle of human rights, the principle of justice itself, from off the earth, and set up their own personal will, pleasure, and interest in its place. All this, and nothing less, is involved in the very idea that there can be any such thing as human legislation that is obligatory upon those upon whom it is imposed.
This is what legislation is really about. Denying you your real rights.
Sorry, Tig, but I am beginning to think, AGAIN:
HANGMAN ROPE SNEAK, DEADLY GANGSTER, BRAIN ON THE MOON, COMPUTER GOD shit about you. (http://www.bentoandstarchky.com/dec/toalljudges.htm)
Are you taking your meds?
-
But you are talking against yourself. You have said that you have little faith in democracy and that you think that politicians break the laws, are corrupted etc. Or you still mean that this corrupted system with enormous nation states is better than a system with small anarchistic societies with a few hundred persons in each would be? Strange. In a society with 500 members the control is of course much greater than in a nation state with 10 millions or 300 millions or one billion.
Yes.
-
Odeon, you are only able to produce one statement where you "admit" you don't want to see my country crumble. However peppered throughout this thread, are statements like this.
right granted to you in 'merica (fuck yeah) by the constitution
My country and its laws. You don't have to like the laws that govern our government because you are not a citizen here. I can produce more quotes like this by the way. One statement saying "please don't think I dislike your country or its constitution" doesn't make everything else you say about it non-existent. That's like when some dude says "with all due respect" then says something blatantly disrespectful after it, as if saying with all due respect is a license to fuck with people. :dunno:
I am criticising your constitution and your laws, not your country or its people. My comment above makes a reference to the (far more) good-natured fun in the America fuck yeah thread, which I hoped you might get, but I guess not. I'm sorry you are being such a sensitive little flower.
-
I dont see how that quote from odeon suggests he hates amerca
I didn't say he hated America. I said he holds contempt for my country and its laws. I swear people, this is like pulling teeth.
con·tempt
/kənˈtem(p)t/
noun
noun: contempt
1.
the feeling that a person or a thing is beneath consideration, worthless, or deserving scorn.
"he showed his contempt for his job by doing it very badly"
synonyms: scorn, disdain, disrespect, scornfulness, contemptuousness,
that quote from odeon
I also made it clear that he talked about " 'merica" and "its constitution" several times. I can produce more than just that quote. In fact I also made it clear that he only "admitted" that he didn't hate my country once. I never said he hated my country, I said he felt this about how we do things, and the laws we think are important:
I think what you said re me was something in the vein of "I can almost smell your contempt for us".
Which I then denied to be the case. I also reminded you that I have clarified this before, because it is something I thought to be important enough to be mentioned.
Why "'merica" would be insulting I quite frankly don't know. Perhaps you can explain.
the feeling that a person or a thing is beneath consideration, worthless, or deserving scorn
One more time, I also made it very clear that he doesn't live here early on in the thread, so I seriously doubt he even understands our culture anyway. I don't know why I've made such an effort to try and help him understand to be totally honest. ::)
I didn't know one has to live in 'merica to be allowed to criticise its constitution. I've seen you discuss the rest of the world, yet I'm pretty sure you've never lived anywhere outside the US. What's the difference, in your opinion?
-
I dont see how that quote from odeon suggests he hates amerca
My guess is that outsiders aren't allowed to criticise it, only praise it. /shrugs
-
Driving is a privilege, not a right. Owning a firearm is a right, and all rights must be granted to all citizens. All people are created equal.
This is where we disagree. I don't see owning a firearm as a right any more than I see owning a nuke as a right.
To me, saying that a blind person can't own a gun is like having a citizen pass a test before being allowed to vote. Would letting people with who fail vote lead to a decrease in the quality of elections? Even if so, it wouldn't be sufficient reason to deny them their rights. If there are preconditions on who can exercise universal rights, then they aren't universal rights anymore.
Considering the quality of the voting population, I think you are on to something here.
But seriously, owning a gun is not a universal right. You may regard it as a right granted to you in 'merica (fuck yeah) by the constitution, but it is not a universal right.
The way I see it, you also have the right to own a gun. Your system just doesn't acknowledge it. I don't regard it as right granted to me by the Constitution; as I've mentioned, I have the right regardless of what the Constitution says.
Exactly. And as I said: if he doesn't believe in universal rights, he can't believe in rights at all. If there exists anything like rights, they have nothing to do with legislation.
The only RIGHT legislation any state should be allowed to make are those which directly protect all of the states' citizenry from abuses by the state itself. Otherwise, what is the reason any thinking body of people would have for joining a state of any sort.
Getting down to brass tacks, though; even a simple union of home owners in a certain area may have desires for the "union" that do not protect specific rights of each owner. They may decide that no home can have vegetables in the front yard, for reasons of appearance for instance, thus violating the universal right of a home owner to use his land as he sees fit. Even in this one simple instance a "so called" state can fail to meet the demands of ALL its citizenry.
The notion of Universal Rights is in question from the outset!
Take this example to the level of trying to govern hundreds of millions of people under one rule almost makes anarchy seem more desirable.
... or not.
I am well armed, in either case.
-
I dont see how that quote from odeon suggests he hates amerca
My guess is that outsiders aren't allowed to criticise it, only praise it. /shrugs
Honestly, speaking as a "proud 'merican," it has often been the praise of outsiders (whose money we wanted to flow onto our shores) that has caused us to continually overstep our borders, acting as the world's police force.
"Never let the $$$ stop!!"
I sometimes wonder what we could have made of ourselves if we had just said, "NO!" more often (to both outsiders and ourselves) and kept our own $$$ at home to support each other, instead of propping up half the world artificially.
I can only think of a few examples where a "democracy intent" has successfully replaced tyranny.
:'(
-
But you are talking against yourself. You have said that you have little faith in democracy and that you think that politicians break the laws, are corrupted etc. Or you still mean that this corrupted system with enormous nation states is better than a system with small anarchistic societies with a few hundred persons in each would be? Strange. In a society with 500 members the control is of course much greater than in a nation state with 10 millions or 300 millions or one billion.
Yes.
Narrow-minded.
-
Yeah I'm with DirtDawg on the point about corrupt and petty neighborhood associations. In one place, we had people pissed off because we painted green trim on our house. Forest green trim alongside beige siding and a brown roof, for crying out loud. It's not like it was fuscia. Though I love bright colors on houses. But they wanted everything in some shade of beige or grey or white.
Ugh.
-
Yeah I'm with DirtDawg on the point about corrupt and petty neighborhood associations. In one place, we had people pissed off because we painted green trim on our house. Forest green trim alongside beige siding and a brown roof, for crying out loud. It's not like it was fuscia. Though I love bright colors on houses. But they wanted everything in some shade of beige or grey or white.
Ugh.
You know what to tell em. 8)
-
I didn't know one has to live in 'merica to be allowed to criticise its constitution. I've seen you discuss the rest of the world, yet I'm pretty sure you've never lived anywhere outside the US. What's the difference, in your opinion?
VERY RARELY, have I criticized other cultures, or their laws. And only when they affect citizens of mine directly. I have very often and quite aggressively been critical of my own country and its actions in other countries though. And I have been critical of the general hatred for my country.
That's the difference.
-
Odeon, you are only able to produce one statement where you "admit" you don't want to see my country crumble. However peppered throughout this thread, are statements like this.
right granted to you in 'merica (fuck yeah) by the constitution
My country and its laws. You don't have to like the laws that govern our government because you are not a citizen here. I can produce more quotes like this by the way. One statement saying "please don't think I dislike your country or its constitution" doesn't make everything else you say about it non-existent. That's like when some dude says "with all due respect" then says something blatantly disrespectful after it, as if saying with all due respect is a license to fuck with people. :dunno:
In America, we are educated to believe that our constitution is the greatest document ever written. We have a difficult time seeing past our indoctrination.
I am criticising your constitution and your laws, not your country or its people. My comment above makes a reference to the (far more) good-natured fun in the America fuck yeah thread, which I hoped you might get, but I guess not. I'm sorry you are being such a sensitive little flower.
-
Actually nowadays in America, we are educated to believe the constitution is the "dirty little middle man" in the path to true progress. Really, its the last thing protecting us from none.
-
For being a constitution I think it is the greatest one ever written. Which one would be greater?
-
For being a constitution I think it is the greatest one ever written. Which one would be greater?
^Agreed. Answer this question, Jagger. What is wrong with it, exactly? Why are so many people deadest on destroying it?
-
For being a constitution I think it is the greatest one ever written. Which one would be greater?
^Agreed. Answer this question, Jagger. What is wrong with it, exactly? Why are so many people deadest on destroying it?
our system of govt is full of murderers. Of thieves.
The bible is better. Because more people have Been murdered in its name.
-
I dont see how that quote from odeon suggests he hates amerca
My guess is that outsiders aren't allowed to criticise it, only praise it. /shrugs
Honestly, speaking as a "proud 'merican," it has often been the praise of outsiders (whose money we wanted to flow onto our shores) that has caused us to continually overstep our borders, acting as the world's police force.
"Never let the $$$ stop!!"
I sometimes wonder what we could have made of ourselves if we had just said, "NO!" more often (to both outsiders and ourselves) and kept our own $$$ at home to support each other, instead of propping up half the world artificially.
I can only think of a few examples where a "democracy intent" has successfully replaced tyranny.
:'(
The US is a superpower and its economy, troubled as it may be, is huge and isolationist politics simply wouldn't work. Like it or not, you need to keep that $$$ flowing.
As for acting as the world's police force, I can think of a few instances where you should have said no to yourselves and some where you should have said no to others. But the role comes with the territory, I'm afraid.
-
But you are talking against yourself. You have said that you have little faith in democracy and that you think that politicians break the laws, are corrupted etc. Or you still mean that this corrupted system with enormous nation states is better than a system with small anarchistic societies with a few hundred persons in each would be? Strange. In a society with 500 members the control is of course much greater than in a nation state with 10 millions or 300 millions or one billion.
Yes.
Narrow-minded.
Says you.
Me, I think the world needs more than a pipe dream.
-
I didn't know one has to live in 'merica to be allowed to criticise its constitution. I've seen you discuss the rest of the world, yet I'm pretty sure you've never lived anywhere outside the US. What's the difference, in your opinion?
VERY RARELY, have I criticized other cultures, or their laws. And only when they affect citizens of mine directly. I have very often and quite aggressively been critical of my own country and its actions in other countries though. And I have been critical of the general hatred for my country.
That's the difference.
Here's the thing, Rage.
I live in a country that is quite insignificant, to be perfectly honest. I like it, even though there are things that are wrong and fucked up, and so mostly it's a good place to live. Its actions in the world are largely inconsequential, however, and in many ways, the actions of your country have more effect here than whatever my government does.
And what's more, I doubt you know enough to discuss my country's problems in any detail. I'm not blaming you, it's simply that very little here warrants the attention of the rest of the world. I suppose we might be more on par with each other if discussing China or Japan, two countries that affect us both.
But when it comes to my country, you wouldn't know what to say. Simple as that.
THAT is a difference, so don't kid yourself.
But what you choose to talk about is hardly the point. The fact that you are implying that there are subjects I shouldn't touch is. I have not insulted your country or its inhabitants. I have criticised your laws and your constitution, and will continue doing so when I want to.
Live with it.
-
For being a constitution I think it is the greatest one ever written. Which one would be greater?
^Agreed. Answer this question, Jagger. What is wrong with it, exactly? Why are so many people deadest on destroying it?
"Criticise" does not equal "destroy".
You should stop acting as if it was your religion.
-
But you are talking against yourself. You have said that you have little faith in democracy and that you think that politicians break the laws, are corrupted etc. Or you still mean that this corrupted system with enormous nation states is better than a system with small anarchistic societies with a few hundred persons in each would be? Strange. In a society with 500 members the control is of course much greater than in a nation state with 10 millions or 300 millions or one billion.
Yes.
Narrow-minded.
Says you.
Me, I think the world needs more than a pipe dream.
It's a pipe dream because most people are idiots without visions and without the ability to think out of the box.
It's not at all physically impossible, as if I said that they could go to the moon in a baloon. Its just that most people are unwilling to even try.
If someone for real believes that there will be any real change ever by voting on a political party, that person simply doesn't understand that this system was made for status quo and nothing else. That's why it's called a state.
-
I didn't know one has to live in 'merica to be allowed to criticise its constitution. I've seen you discuss the rest of the world, yet I'm pretty sure you've never lived anywhere outside the US. What's the difference, in your opinion?
VERY RARELY, have I criticized other cultures, or their laws. And only when they affect citizens of mine directly. I have very often and quite aggressively been critical of my own country and its actions in other countries though. And I have been critical of the general hatred for my country.
That's the difference.
Here's the thing, Rage.
I live in a country that is quite insignificant, to be perfectly honest. I like it, even though there are things that are wrong and fucked up, and so mostly it's a good place to live. Its actions in the world are largely inconsequential, however, and in many ways, the actions of your country have more effect here than whatever my government does.
And what's more, I doubt you know enough to discuss my country's problems in any detail. I'm not blaming you, it's simply that very little here warrants the attention of the rest of the world. I suppose we might be more on par with each other if discussing China or Japan, two countries that affect us both.
But when it comes to my country, you wouldn't know what to say. Simple as that.
THAT is a difference, so don't kid yourself.
But what you choose to talk about is hardly the point. The fact that you are implying that there are subjects I shouldn't touch is. I have not insulted your country or its inhabitants. I have criticised your laws and your constitution, and will continue doing so when I want to.
Live with it.
Wait 20-30 years and see if you think that Sweden is a good place to live then too. Your beloved politicians are doing everything to destroy it. I know people from Italy who say that they already have better public healthcare there.
-
I didn't know one has to live in 'merica to be allowed to criticise its constitution. I've seen you discuss the rest of the world, yet I'm pretty sure you've never lived anywhere outside the US. What's the difference, in your opinion?
VERY RARELY, have I criticized other cultures, or their laws. And only when they affect citizens of mine directly. I have very often and quite aggressively been critical of my own country and its actions in other countries though. And I have been critical of the general hatred for my country.
That's the difference.
Here's the thing, Rage.
I live in a country that is quite insignificant, to be perfectly honest. I like it, even though there are things that are wrong and fucked up, and so mostly it's a good place to live. Its actions in the world are largely inconsequential, however, and in many ways, the actions of your country have more effect here than whatever my government does.
And what's more, I doubt you know enough to discuss my country's problems in any detail. I'm not blaming you, it's simply that very little here warrants the attention of the rest of the world. I suppose we might be more on par with each other if discussing China or Japan, two countries that affect us both.
But when it comes to my country, you wouldn't know what to say. Simple as that.
THAT is a difference, so don't kid yourself.
But what you choose to talk about is hardly the point. The fact that you are implying that there are subjects I shouldn't touch is. I have not insulted your country or its inhabitants. I have criticised your laws and your constitution, and will continue doing so when I want to.
Live with it.
And I will continue to attack that behavior. Forever. ;)
-
For being a constitution I think it is the greatest one ever written. Which one would be greater?
^Agreed. Answer this question, Jagger. What is wrong with it, exactly? Why are so many people deadest on destroying it?
"Criticise" does not equal "destroy".
You should stop acting as if it was your religion.
You put your foot in your mouth again. There actually are a lot of people in my country(you've never been here) that would like to see the constitution destroyed. They think its just in the way.
-
For being a constitution I think it is the greatest one ever written. Which one would be greater?
^Agreed. Answer this question, Jagger. What is wrong with it, exactly? Why are so many people deadest on destroying it?
our system of govt is full of murderers. Of thieves.
The bible is better. Because more people have Been murdered in its name.
Eat shit. :M
-
Yeah I'm with DirtDawg on the point about corrupt and petty neighborhood associations. In one place, we had people pissed off because we painted green trim on our house. Forest green trim alongside beige siding and a brown roof, for crying out loud. It's not like it was fuscia. Though I love bright colors on houses. But they wanted everything in some shade of beige or grey or white.
Ugh.
UGH, indeed.
In addition to our own need of doctoring, we should have kept our boots under or own beds!
-
I dont see how that quote from odeon suggests he hates amerca
My guess is that outsiders aren't allowed to criticise it, only praise it. /shrugs
Honestly, speaking as a "proud 'merican," it has often been the praise of outsiders (whose money we wanted to flow onto our shores) that has caused us to continually overstep our borders, acting as the world's police force.
"Never let the $$$ stop!!"
I sometimes wonder what we could have made of ourselves if we had just said, "NO!" more often (to both outsiders and ourselves) and kept our own $$$ at home to support each other, instead of propping up half the world artificially.
I can only think of a few examples where a "democracy intent" has successfully replaced tyranny.
:'(
The US is a superpower and its economy, troubled as it may be, is huge and isolationist politics simply wouldn't work. Like it or not, you need to keep that $$$ flowing.
As for acting as the world's police force, I can think of a few instances where you should have said no to yourselves and some where you should have said no to others. But the role comes with the territory, I'm afraid.
While that may be in evidence, I would have wished for a little less projection of our own hubris.
:angel:
-
I didn't know one has to live in 'merica to be allowed to criticise its constitution. I've seen you discuss the rest of the world, yet I'm pretty sure you've never lived anywhere outside the US. What's the difference, in your opinion?
VERY RARELY, have I criticized other cultures, or their laws. And only when they affect citizens of mine directly. I have very often and quite aggressively been critical of my own country and its actions in other countries though. And I have been critical of the general hatred for my country.
That's the difference.
Here's the thing, Rage.
I live in a country that is quite insignificant, to be perfectly honest. I like it, even though there are things that are wrong and fucked up, and so mostly it's a good place to live. Its actions in the world are largely inconsequential, however, and in many ways, the actions of your country have more effect here than whatever my government does.
And what's more, I doubt you know enough to discuss my country's problems in any detail. I'm not blaming you, it's simply that very little here warrants the attention of the rest of the world. I suppose we might be more on par with each other if discussing China or Japan, two countries that affect us both.
But when it comes to my country, you wouldn't know what to say. Simple as that.
THAT is a difference, so don't kid yourself.
But what you choose to talk about is hardly the point. The fact that you are implying that there are subjects I shouldn't touch is. I have not insulted your country or its inhabitants. I have criticised your laws and your constitution, and will continue doing so when I want to.
Live with it.
And I will continue to attack that behavior. Forever. ;)
OMG, the things the good people of this board will have to suffer through. :P
-
For being a constitution I think it is the greatest one ever written. Which one would be greater?
^Agreed. Answer this question, Jagger. What is wrong with it, exactly? Why are so many people deadest on destroying it?
"Criticise" does not equal "destroy".
You should stop acting as if it was your religion.
You put your foot in your mouth again. There actually are a lot of people in my country(you've never been here) that would like to see the constitution destroyed. They think its just in the way.
Huh? "Criticise" *does* equal "destroy"?!?!?
So it's untouchable? Glad it had at least a couple of amendments before it became a religion. /shrugs
-
I dont see how that quote from odeon suggests he hates amerca
My guess is that outsiders aren't allowed to criticise it, only praise it. /shrugs
Honestly, speaking as a "proud 'merican," it has often been the praise of outsiders (whose money we wanted to flow onto our shores) that has caused us to continually overstep our borders, acting as the world's police force.
"Never let the $$$ stop!!"
I sometimes wonder what we could have made of ourselves if we had just said, "NO!" more often (to both outsiders and ourselves) and kept our own $$$ at home to support each other, instead of propping up half the world artificially.
I can only think of a few examples where a "democracy intent" has successfully replaced tyranny.
:'(
The US is a superpower and its economy, troubled as it may be, is huge and isolationist politics simply wouldn't work. Like it or not, you need to keep that $$$ flowing.
As for acting as the world's police force, I can think of a few instances where you should have said no to yourselves and some where you should have said no to others. But the role comes with the territory, I'm afraid.
While that may be in evidence, I would have wished for a little less projection of our own hubris.
:angel:
Hubris can be a good thing, in moderation. You have to think you can do it, that you are right. But when you stop questioning and start acting as if it's a god-given right, you need to take a few steps back and rethink.
-
Odeon, just about 25 years ago there were 150000 submachine guns in private homes in Sweden. How come that no one went beserk with them? Just because those guys were members of the home guard? Not a single person flipped with them.
(Now he will say that it is because they were members of the home guard.)
For my part I think it has more to do with mentality. People rarely went beserk with guns in Sweden even when you could buy a revolver for five kronor at a pawnbroker's.
-
By the way: these psychopaths, the politicians, aren't content with the enormous wealth and power that they already have, so they start wars for faked reasons to torture and murder totally innocent people to get richer and more powerful. Yet you are saying that this system is still better than a system where no single individual can ever get such power :facepalm2:
-
One more thing: when we discussed this another time, I told a story about a neonazi with a totally clean record, who got his gun licenses revoked after having them for 25 years. You said that that was right. So you are in favour of punishing people for thought crimes. So you are an elitist, just like said neonazi, though you consider your own elitism "nobler".
-
I dont see how that quote from odeon suggests he hates amerca
My guess is that outsiders aren't allowed to criticise it, only praise it. /shrugs
Honestly, speaking as a "proud 'merican," it has often been the praise of outsiders (whose money we wanted to flow onto our shores) that has caused us to continually overstep our borders, acting as the world's police force.
"Never let the $$$ stop!!"
I sometimes wonder what we could have made of ourselves if we had just said, "NO!" more often (to both outsiders and ourselves) and kept our own $$$ at home to support each other, instead of propping up half the world artificially.
I can only think of a few examples where a "democracy intent" has successfully replaced tyranny.
:'(
The US is a superpower and its economy, troubled as it may be, is huge and isolationist politics simply wouldn't work. Like it or not, you need to keep that $$$ flowing.
As for acting as the world's police force, I can think of a few instances where you should have said no to yourselves and some where you should have said no to others. But the role comes with the territory, I'm afraid.
While that may be in evidence, I would have wished for a little less projection of our own hubris.
:angel:
Hubris can be a good thing, in moderation. You have to think you can do it, that you are right. But when you stop questioning and start acting as if it's a god-given right, you need to take a few steps back and rethink.
Dude, you don't get it. There actually are a lot of people in my country that are trying to actually do away with its constitution. No kidding. To make matters worse, most of these people haven't even read it, and would refuse to do so if offered a copy.
-
Because they are politically correct cunts. Those people rarely have a clue what they are talking about, but they demand to have things done their way nonetheless.
-
Because they are politically correct cunts. Those people rarely have a clue what they are talking about, but they demand to have things done their way nonetheless.
I would be much more receptive to my countrymen's opinion if they could recite one amendment of the bill of rights in the constitution they claim to hate so much.
-
I dont see how that quote from odeon suggests he hates amerca
My guess is that outsiders aren't allowed to criticise it, only praise it. /shrugs
Honestly, speaking as a "proud 'merican," it has often been the praise of outsiders (whose money we wanted to flow onto our shores) that has caused us to continually overstep our borders, acting as the world's police force.
"Never let the $$$ stop!!"
I sometimes wonder what we could have made of ourselves if we had just said, "NO!" more often (to both outsiders and ourselves) and kept our own $$$ at home to support each other, instead of propping up half the world artificially.
I can only think of a few examples where a "democracy intent" has successfully replaced tyranny.
:'(
The US is a superpower and its economy, troubled as it may be, is huge and isolationist politics simply wouldn't work. Like it or not, you need to keep that $$$ flowing.
As for acting as the world's police force, I can think of a few instances where you should have said no to yourselves and some where you should have said no to others. But the role comes with the territory, I'm afraid.
While that may be in evidence, I would have wished for a little less projection of our own hubris.
:angel:
Hubris can be a good thing, in moderation. You have to think you can do it, that you are right. But when you stop questioning and start acting as if it's a god-given right, you need to take a few steps back and rethink.
Yeah.
While "we" assume a GG right, we are still in question for our lack of successes.
A few steps back might have been advisable for the good of the world in the eighties, after the "Cold War" was decided.
:angel:
I can just think of a few other ways we coulda/shoulda/woulda gone, if we had been a bit less interested in the only way history has proven to us that we can "create" $$$ out of empty space. Empty space means, feed the economy; go make a war!
-
I dont see how that quote from odeon suggests he hates amerca
My guess is that outsiders aren't allowed to criticise it, only praise it. /shrugs
Honestly, speaking as a "proud 'merican," it has often been the praise of outsiders (whose money we wanted to flow onto our shores) that has caused us to continually overstep our borders, acting as the world's police force.
"Never let the $$$ stop!!"
I sometimes wonder what we could have made of ourselves if we had just said, "NO!" more often (to both outsiders and ourselves) and kept our own $$$ at home to support each other, instead of propping up half the world artificially.
I can only think of a few examples where a "democracy intent" has successfully replaced tyranny.
:'(
The US is a superpower and its economy, troubled as it may be, is huge and isolationist politics simply wouldn't work. Like it or not, you need to keep that $$$ flowing.
As for acting as the world's police force, I can think of a few instances where you should have said no to yourselves and some where you should have said no to others. But the role comes with the territory, I'm afraid.
While that may be in evidence, I would have wished for a little less projection of our own hubris.
:angel:
Hubris can be a good thing, in moderation. You have to think you can do it, that you are right. But when you stop questioning and start acting as if it's a god-given right, you need to take a few steps back and rethink.
Dude, you don't get it. There actually are a lot of people in my country that are trying to actually do away with its constitution. No kidding. To make matters worse, most of these people haven't even read it, and would refuse to do so if offered a copy.
Did you bother to read the above exchange before posting, Rage?
-
I dont see how that quote from odeon suggests he hates amerca
My guess is that outsiders aren't allowed to criticise it, only praise it. /shrugs
Honestly, speaking as a "proud 'merican," it has often been the praise of outsiders (whose money we wanted to flow onto our shores) that has caused us to continually overstep our borders, acting as the world's police force.
"Never let the $$$ stop!!"
I sometimes wonder what we could have made of ourselves if we had just said, "NO!" more often (to both outsiders and ourselves) and kept our own $$$ at home to support each other, instead of propping up half the world artificially.
I can only think of a few examples where a "democracy intent" has successfully replaced tyranny.
:'(
The US is a superpower and its economy, troubled as it may be, is huge and isolationist politics simply wouldn't work. Like it or not, you need to keep that $$$ flowing.
As for acting as the world's police force, I can think of a few instances where you should have said no to yourselves and some where you should have said no to others. But the role comes with the territory, I'm afraid.
While that may be in evidence, I would have wished for a little less projection of our own hubris.
:angel:
Hubris can be a good thing, in moderation. You have to think you can do it, that you are right. But when you stop questioning and start acting as if it's a god-given right, you need to take a few steps back and rethink.
Dude, you don't get it. There actually are a lot of people in my country that are trying to actually do away with its constitution. No kidding. To make matters worse, most of these people haven't even read it, and would refuse to do so if offered a copy.
Did you bother to read the above exchange before posting, Rage?
Yep. The people in my country you might think are questioning what you would call "god given rights", are actually following a religion themselves and giving no thought to most anything they do.
-
That makes no sense. Are you criticising DD for holding an opinion different from yours? What are you saying?
As for religions, you are the one to blow up if your constitution is put into question. You are the one to treat it like a religion, not DD.
But we've been there.
-
That makes no sense. Are you criticising DD for holding an opinion different from yours? What are you saying?
As for religions, you are the one to blow up if your constitution is put into question. You are the one to treat it like a religion, not DD.
But we've been there.
No i'm not. I'm criticizing you for being way off the mark. I have not "blown up" when you criticized my country's constitution. I'm annoyed that you even think its your business to talk about. Especially since you have no constructive suggestions as an alternative.
-
He simply avoids the question how to defend yourself against the state. Most people here do. It's out of their ability to even imagine that the situation would ever occur.
-
Even though its occurred with every developed civilization in human history, sometimes several times. :dunno:
-
The military in Sweden shot on peaceful workers demonstrating in 1931. My grandma was 9 years old then.
-
Also this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_American_internment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_American_internment)
As recent as 1942. It can happen today. It could happen tomorrow.
-
And of course Jews in nazi Germany and Soviet farmers etc were disarmed and murdered in millions. But that will never happen, of course, at least not in western Europe or America ::)
-
THE HOLOCAUST IS COMING!!!!!11!1! :tinfoil:
-
THE HOLOCAUST IS COMING!!!!!11!1! :tinfoil:
Its a possibility. Why joke about it?
-
THE HOLOCAUST IS COMING!!!!!11!1! :tinfoil:
People are raped and tortured to death at this very momnet in Syria. Not long ago that happened in ex Yugoslavia. But you and odeon know with 100% certainty that that is never going to happen in Sweden, the UK or the US. Amazing.
-
It sure doesn't seem like something to joke about to me, either.
-
:popcorn:
-
That makes no sense. Are you criticising DD for holding an opinion different from yours? What are you saying?
As for religions, you are the one to blow up if your constitution is put into question. You are the one to treat it like a religion, not DD.
But we've been there.
No i'm not. I'm criticizing you for being way off the mark. I have not "blown up" when you criticized my country's constitution. I'm annoyed that you even think its your business to talk about. Especially since you have no constructive suggestions as an alternative.
Since when are we not allowed to criticise your country or its constitution? Face it, Rage. What your country does affects the entire globe. Your politics, your economics, your attitudes towards everybody else.
Your debt ceiling, to use a recent example, could easily cause a worldwide depression so what you do to solve it is everybody's business. Your gun politics affect how you deal with your country but also how you deal with others, and so it is our business. Only Michael Jackson thought living in a plastic bubble would actually solve anything.
As for suggestions, I think my opinions are well known. They are, IMHO, constructive. They are, however, different from yours. You don't have to like it, just live with it.
-
He simply avoids the question how to defend yourself against the state. Most people here do. It's out of their ability to even imagine that the situation would ever occur.
Not avoiding it, Lit. I have addressed it a number of times but you don't accept it. Different.
-
Even though its occurred with every developed civilization in human history, sometimes several times. :dunno:
While you may be fine with being stuck in the dark ages, not everyone is.
-
THE HOLOCAUST IS COMING!!!!!11!1! :tinfoil:
People are raped and tortured to death at this very momnet in Syria. Not long ago that happened in ex Yugoslavia. But you and odeon know with 100% certainty that that is never going to happen in Sweden, the UK or the US. Amazing.
What's amazing is that you put words in our mouths, words we never uttered.
-
THE HOLOCAUST IS COMING!!!!!11!1! :tinfoil:
People are raped and tortured to death at this very momnet in Syria. Not long ago that happened in ex Yugoslavia. But you and odeon know with 100% certainty that that is never going to happen in Sweden, the UK or the US. Amazing.
What's amazing is that you put words in our mouths, words we never uttered.
Logically that is the only conclusion one can draw. If you want the people to be able to stand even the slightest shadow of a chance to avoid something like what has happened in Bosnia and is happening in Syria right now in, you can't be in favour of gun laws. With registered guns, limitations of capacity on guns etc etc the people will barely stand a chance to defend itself.
I myself say that it is very unlikely that something like that in Syria will happen in Sweden in any short time from now, but it's also very unlikely that one's house will burn down, and yet almost everyone has a fire insurance. Accepting any gun control is like having a house but no fire insurance.
-
Your debt ceiling, to use a recent example, could easily cause a worldwide depression so what you do to solve it is everybody's business. Your gun politics affect how you deal with your country but also how you deal with others, and so it is our business. Only Michael Jackson thought living in a plastic bubble would actually solve anything.
Ugh. This is true.
I don't see how turning the entire country into Chicago will solve that, though.
-
THE HOLOCAUST IS COMING!!!!!11!1! :tinfoil:
People are raped and tortured to death at this very momnet in Syria. Not long ago that happened in ex Yugoslavia. But you and odeon know with 100% certainty that that is never going to happen in Sweden, the UK or the US. Amazing.
What's amazing is that you put words in our mouths, words we never uttered.
Logically that is the only conclusion one can draw. If you want the people to be able to stand even the slightest shadow of a chance to avoid something like what has happened in Bosnia and is happening in Syria right now in, you can't be in favour of gun laws. With registered guns, limitations of capacity on guns etc etc the people will barely stand a chance to defend itself.
I myself say that it is very unlikely that something like that in Syria will happen in Sweden in any short time from now, but it's also very unlikely that one's house will burn down, and yet almost everyone has a fire insurance. Accepting any gun control is like having a house but no fire insurance.
You might draw that conclusion and even think that is logical in some twisted way.
I don't. Stop putting words in my mouth.
-
Your debt ceiling, to use a recent example, could easily cause a worldwide depression so what you do to solve it is everybody's business. Your gun politics affect how you deal with your country but also how you deal with others, and so it is our business. Only Michael Jackson thought living in a plastic bubble would actually solve anything.
Ugh. This is true.
I don't see how turning the entire country into Chicago will solve that, though.
:laugh:
-
Your debt ceiling, to use a recent example, could easily cause a worldwide depression so what you do to solve it is everybody's business. Your gun politics affect how you deal with your country but also how you deal with others, and so it is our business. Only Michael Jackson thought living in a plastic bubble would actually solve anything.
Ugh. This is true.
I don't see how turning the entire country into Chicago will solve that, though.
:laugh:
You see how silly that is, don't you? I think the white elephant in the room right now is interests which are counter intuitive to prosperity on part of American leaders, who are working with corporate individuals and wal-street. Motherfuckers seem to think the American economy is a fucking game.
Well I got news for them, this game they're playing is going to wind up pissing off more than the American people. This is BIG trouble. One country with really high stakes in our economy is china, and those guys are a very powerful country now, with powerful allies. This shit ain't a game, Cruz! It isn't a game, Oblamo! Quit playing around!
-
THE HOLOCAUST IS COMING!!!!!11!1! :tinfoil:
People are raped and tortured to death at this very momnet in Syria. Not long ago that happened in ex Yugoslavia. But you and odeon know with 100% certainty that that is never going to happen in Sweden, the UK or the US. Amazing.
What's amazing is that you put words in our mouths, words we never uttered.
Logically that is the only conclusion one can draw. If you want the people to be able to stand even the slightest shadow of a chance to avoid something like what has happened in Bosnia and is happening in Syria right now in, you can't be in favour of gun laws. With registered guns, limitations of capacity on guns etc etc the people will barely stand a chance to defend itself.
I myself say that it is very unlikely that something like that in Syria will happen in Sweden in any short time from now, but it's also very unlikely that one's house will burn down, and yet almost everyone has a fire insurance. Accepting any gun control is like having a house but no fire insurance.
You might draw that conclusion and even think that is logical in some twisted way.
I don't. Stop putting words in my mouth.
If you have a situation like in Syria you can't talk the oppressors into not torturing and murdering you. You must use violence.
In all countries in WWII where they had gun registries, the Germans simply gave the civilians 24 hours to turn in their guns. In Greece and Yugoslavia they had no gun control, and those countries were also the ones that were hardest to control, becasue the resistance movements there were well armed.
-
THE HOLOCAUST IS COMING!!!!!11!1! :tinfoil:
People are raped and tortured to death at this very momnet in Syria. Not long ago that happened in ex Yugoslavia. But you and odeon know with 100% certainty that that is never going to happen in Sweden, the UK or the US. Amazing.
What's amazing is that you put words in our mouths, words we never uttered.
Logically that is the only conclusion one can draw. If you want the people to be able to stand even the slightest shadow of a chance to avoid something like what has happened in Bosnia and is happening in Syria right now in, you can't be in favour of gun laws. With registered guns, limitations of capacity on guns etc etc the people will barely stand a chance to defend itself.
I myself say that it is very unlikely that something like that in Syria will happen in Sweden in any short time from now, but it's also very unlikely that one's house will burn down, and yet almost everyone has a fire insurance. Accepting any gun control is like having a house but no fire insurance.
You might draw that conclusion and even think that is logical in some twisted way.
I don't. Stop putting words in my mouth.
If you have a situation like in Syria you can't talk the oppressors into not torturing and murdering you. You must use violence.
In all countries in WWII where they had gun registries, the Germans simply gave the civilians 24 hours to turn in their guns. In Greece and Yugoslavia they had no gun control, and those countries were also the ones that were hardest to control, becasue the resistance movements there were well armed.
This is my "interested" face:
:M
-
You see how silly that is, don't you? I think the white elephant in the room right now is interests which are counter intuitive to prosperity on part of American leaders, who are working with corporate individuals and wal-street. Motherfuckers seem to think the American economy is a fucking game.
Well I got news for them, this game they're playing is going to wind up pissing off more than the American people. This is BIG trouble. One country with really high stakes in our economy is china, and those guys are a very powerful country now, with powerful allies. This shit ain't a game, Cruz! It isn't a game, Oblamo! Quit playing around!
I've always wanted to know what the Chinese will do to get their money back.
-
THE HOLOCAUST IS COMING!!!!!11!1! :tinfoil:
People are raped and tortured to death at this very momnet in Syria. Not long ago that happened in ex Yugoslavia. But you and odeon know with 100% certainty that that is never going to happen in Sweden, the UK or the US. Amazing.
Thanks for (once again) telling me what I think. Thank god I have you to inform me of what the fuck my thoughts actually are!
-
You see how silly that is, don't you? I think the white elephant in the room right now is interests which are counter intuitive to prosperity on part of American leaders, who are working with corporate individuals and wal-street. Motherfuckers seem to think the American economy is a fucking game.
Well I got news for them, this game they're playing is going to wind up pissing off more than the American people. This is BIG trouble. One country with really high stakes in our economy is china, and those guys are a very powerful country now, with powerful allies. This shit ain't a game, Cruz! It isn't a game, Oblamo! Quit playing around!
I've always wanted to know what the Chinese will do to get their money back.
They'll annex California, then threaten to give it back unless we pay them. :zoinks:
(:P at PPK.)
-
THE HOLOCAUST IS COMING!!!!!11!1! :tinfoil:
People are raped and tortured to death at this very momnet in Syria. Not long ago that happened in ex Yugoslavia. But you and odeon know with 100% certainty that that is never going to happen in Sweden, the UK or the US. Amazing.
What's amazing is that you put words in our mouths, words we never uttered.
Logically that is the only conclusion one can draw. If you want the people to be able to stand even the slightest shadow of a chance to avoid something like what has happened in Bosnia and is happening in Syria right now in, you can't be in favour of gun laws. With registered guns, limitations of capacity on guns etc etc the people will barely stand a chance to defend itself.
I myself say that it is very unlikely that something like that in Syria will happen in Sweden in any short time from now, but it's also very unlikely that one's house will burn down, and yet almost everyone has a fire insurance. Accepting any gun control is like having a house but no fire insurance.
You might draw that conclusion and even think that is logical in some twisted way.
I don't. Stop putting words in my mouth.
If you have a situation like in Syria you can't talk the oppressors into not torturing and murdering you. You must use violence.
In all countries in WWII where they had gun registries, the Germans simply gave the civilians 24 hours to turn in their guns. In Greece and Yugoslavia they had no gun control, and those countries were also the ones that were hardest to control, becasue the resistance movements there were well armed.
This is my "interested" face:
:M
Actually, you haven't told what we should do if a situation like the one in Syria ever occurs here.
-
THE HOLOCAUST IS COMING!!!!!11!1! :tinfoil:
People are raped and tortured to death at this very momnet in Syria. Not long ago that happened in ex Yugoslavia. But you and odeon know with 100% certainty that that is never going to happen in Sweden, the UK or the US. Amazing.
Thanks for (once again) telling me what I think. Thank god I have you to inform me of what the fuck my thoughts actually are!
OK, tell me how we should protect ourselves against being murdered by the state, with gun control, then.
-
You see how silly that is, don't you? I think the white elephant in the room right now is interests which are counter intuitive to prosperity on part of American leaders, who are working with corporate individuals and wal-street. Motherfuckers seem to think the American economy is a fucking game.
Well I got news for them, this game they're playing is going to wind up pissing off more than the American people. This is BIG trouble. One country with really high stakes in our economy is china, and those guys are a very powerful country now, with powerful allies. This shit ain't a game, Cruz! It isn't a game, Oblamo! Quit playing around!
I've always wanted to know what the Chinese will do to get their money back.
It is indeed something i'm worried about.
-
Maybe they'll be too busy dying of cancer from the pollution they've created while making cheap plastic crap for USA dollar stores.
-
Maybe they'll be too busy dying of cancer from the pollution they've created while making cheap plastic crap for USA dollar stores.
We can only hope. I mean if they try to force the issue, it will be war. If they cut off trades and such it will make us crash, which will probably result in war. Goddamit why we gotta be doin wars?
-
A thread about Iowa made it to 59 pages?? :zombiefuck:
I've been to Iowa a few dozen times. There isn't enough in that state to write 59 pages about.
Ooh, look! a cow. Ooh, look! corn! Ooh, look! a barn. Ooh, look! a silo! ::)
-
But did you read the thread? :P
-
A thread about Iowa made it to 59 pages?? :zombiefuck:
I've been to Iowa a few dozen times. There isn't enough in that state to write 59 pages about.
Ooh, look! a cow. Ooh, look! corn! Ooh, look! a barn. Ooh, look! a silo! ::)
Ooh, look! A blind person with a gun! :GA:
-
A thread about Iowa made it to 59 pages?? :zombiefuck:
I've been to Iowa a few dozen times. There isn't enough in that state to write 59 pages about.
Ooh, look! a cow. Ooh, look! corn! Ooh, look! a barn. Ooh, look! a silo! ::)
Ooh, look! A blind person with a gun! :GA:
Blind Iowans can sense their targets by smell alone! :M
-
A thread about Iowa made it to 59 pages?? :zombiefuck:
I've been to Iowa a few dozen times. There isn't enough in that state to write 59 pages about.
Ooh, look! a cow. Ooh, look! corn! Ooh, look! a barn. Ooh, look! a silo! ::)
Ooh, look! A blind person with a gun! :GA:
Blind Iowans can sense their targets by smell alone! :M
They're shooting at Massholes? :trollface:
-
A thread about Iowa made it to 59 pages?? :zombiefuck:
I've been to Iowa a few dozen times. There isn't enough in that state to write 59 pages about.
Ooh, look! a cow. Ooh, look! corn! Ooh, look! a barn. Ooh, look! a silo! ::)
Ooh, look! A blind person with a gun! :GA:
Blind Iowans can sense their targets by smell alone! :M
I thought it was by fear. :zoinks:
-
A thread about Iowa made it to 59 pages?? :zombiefuck:
I've been to Iowa a few dozen times. There isn't enough in that state to write 59 pages about.
Ooh, look! a cow. Ooh, look! corn! Ooh, look! a barn. Ooh, look! a silo! ::)
Ooh, look! A blind person with a gun! :GA:
Blind Iowans can sense their targets by smell alone! :M
I thought it was by fear. :zoinks:
Fear of tyranny! :viking:
-
:litigious:
It's OK. Just shoot everybody.
-
:litigious:
It's OK. Just shoot everybody.
We finally brought odeon over to our side!!! :2thumbsup:
-
:litigious:
It's OK. Just shoot everybody.
We finally brought odeon over to our side!!! :2thumbsup:
:woohoo:
-
The dark side, as well all know, has cookies.
-
The dark side, as well all know, has cookies.
Stand your ground... for cookies. :zoinks:
-
Or skittles. :heisenberg:
-
:litigious:
It's OK. Just shoot everybody.
So do you own any guns now??
-
:litigious:
It's OK. Just shoot everybody.
So do you own any guns now??
No, I don't. I'm just not interested enough to buy one.