INTENSITY²
Start here => What's your crime? Basic Discussion => Topic started by: Parts on March 06, 2009, 08:53:12 PM
-
I was out riding around town and just saw some sort of police raid must have been 6 cars surrounding a house. A friend on my son lives in part of the multifamily home so I'll find out tomorrow what happened but there must have been 6 cars all lit up two ran a light just in front of me to get there. Must be something big
-
So Lit got there all right, then? :P
-
It's nothing to joke about. It's time for a global uprising, before it's too late. I'm surprised that the American people stays passive. It should be politician and pig killing time.
-
So Lit got there all right, then? :P
:lol: :plus:
-
It's nothing to joke about. It's time for a global uprising, before it's too late. I'm surprised that the American people stays passive. It should be politician and pig killing time.
Let's kill the Nazi pigs instead. More fun, more just.
-
The Nazis never stopped law-abiding people from owning guns. The Third Reich had more liberal gun laws than most European countries today.
-
They killed quite a few of the law-abiding people instead.
-
They killed quite a few of the law-abiding people instead.
Odeon, you get "law-abiding" mixed up with whether or not people are good or evil. The reality is more like that there exist people who both break the law and follow it who happen to be good. The same applies with evil.
-
If you don't want to understand, you don't understand.
-
They killed quite a few of the law-abiding people instead.
Odeon, you get "law-abiding" mixed up with whether or not people are good or evil. The reality is more like that there exist people who both break the law and follow it who happen to be good. The same applies with evil.
No, I didn't mix up anything. Read my reply in context.
I was referring to German citizens who never broke any law whatsoever, but still ended up killed by the state.
-
They killed quite a few of the law-abiding people instead.
Odeon, you get "law-abiding" mixed up with whether or not people are good or evil. The reality is more like that there exist people who both break the law and follow it who happen to be good. The same applies with evil.
No, I didn't mix up anything. Read my reply in context.
I was referring to German citizens who never broke any law whatsoever, but still ended up killed by the state.
Oh, how good. In Sweden they're just being humiliated and made defenseless. And people who become crime victims due to the "enrichment" of Sweden usually haven't broken any laws either.
-
Ah, yes, it makes sense to compare Nazi Germany to modern-day Sweden. What a fucking nutcase you are.
-
Ah, yes, it makes sense to compare Nazi Germany to modern-day Sweden. What a fucking nutcase you are.
Yes, it does. They usually don't kille people physically here, but there is character-assasination, like when you oppose immigration and other PC shit.
-
:LMAO:
Sorry, dear, what were you saying...?
-
The Nazis never stopped law-abiding people from owning guns.
As long as those law-abiding people were German. When the Nazis went into France, all they had to do was go to the local police stations, find out who had guns, and confiscate them.
-
The Nazis never stopped law-abiding people from owning guns.
As long as those law-abiding people were German. When the Nazis went into France, all they had to do was go to the local police stations, find out who had guns, and confiscate them.
Yes. They did in Norway too. But Nazi Germany still had more liberal gun laws for their own people in 1939 than Sweden has in 2009.
-
By the way: the Nazis did not kill law-abiding people; it was very well known that Jews didn't have full civil rights in the Third Reich and it was illegal to be a communist or say anything insulting about Hitler. In the Third Reich you did not get randomly arrested and killed, like you were in the Soviet Union. But I understand it's embarrassing for John Lennon that the Nazi legal system was safer than the Soviet. ::)
-
By the way: the Nazis did not kill law-abiding people; it was very well known that Jews didn't have full civil rights in the Third Reich and it was illegal to be a communist or say anything insulting about Hitler. In the Third Reich you did not get randomly arrested and killed, like you were in the Soviet Union. But I understand it's embarrassing for John Lennon that the Nazi legal system was safer than the Soviet. ::)
You're such a dumbshit.
-
By the way: the Nazis did not kill law-abiding people; it was very well known that Jews didn't have full civil rights in the Third Reich and it was illegal to be a communist or say anything insulting about Hitler. In the Third Reich you did not get randomly arrested and killed, like you were in the Soviet Union. But I understand it's embarrassing for John Lennon that the Nazi legal system was safer than the Soviet. ::)
You're such a dumbshit.
So it isn't true? The Nazis caught completely innocent Germans randomly in the streets?
-
By the way: the Nazis did not kill law-abiding people; it was very well known that Jews didn't have full civil rights in the Third Reich and it was illegal to be a communist or say anything insulting about Hitler. In the Third Reich you did not get randomly arrested and killed, like you were in the Soviet Union. But I understand it's embarrassing for John Lennon that the Nazi legal system was safer than the Soviet. ::)
You're such a dumbshit.
So it isn't true? The Nazis caught completely innocent Germans randomly in the streets?
You're such a dumbshit. Why don't you just go choke on your own vomit.
-
By the way: the Nazis did not kill law-abiding people; it was very well known that Jews didn't have full civil rights in the Third Reich and it was illegal to be a communist or say anything insulting about Hitler. In the Third Reich you did not get randomly arrested and killed, like you were in the Soviet Union. But I understand it's embarrassing for John Lennon that the Nazi legal system was safer than the Soviet. ::)
You're such a dumbshit.
So it isn't true? The Nazis caught completely innocent Germans randomly in the streets?
You're such a dumbshit. Why don't you just go choke on your own vomit.
Answer my question, you wanker. Did they arrest people just for fun or not? Because the commies arrested anyone for the smallest suspicion and had not anything like Western justice at all while the Nazis had.
-
By the way: the Nazis did not kill law-abiding people; it was very well known that Jews didn't have full civil rights in the Third Reich and it was illegal to be a communist or say anything insulting about Hitler. In the Third Reich you did not get randomly arrested and killed, like you were in the Soviet Union. But I understand it's embarrassing for John Lennon that the Nazi legal system was safer than the Soviet. ::)
You're such a dumbshit.
So it isn't true? The Nazis caught completely innocent Germans randomly in the streets?
You're such a dumbshit. Why don't you just go choke on your own vomit.
Answer my question, you wanker. Did they arrest people just for fun or not? Because the commies arrested anyone for the smallest suspicion and had not anything like Western justice at all while the Nazis had.
Get a brain asshole.
-
So you still can't answer?
-
So you still can't answer?
I already have, you are so stupid, you just don't understand.
-
So you still can't answer?
I already have, you are so stupid, you just don't understand.
Nazi Germany wasn't a democracy, and if you belonged to certain ethnicities or had certain opinions, you could count on trouble. If you were an ordinary German and had views shared by the regime nothing was likely to happen to you. Is anything incorrect in that description?
-
So you still can't answer?
I already have, you are so stupid, you just don't understand.
Nazi Germany wasn't a democracy, and if you belonged to certain ethnicities or had certain opinions, you could count on trouble. If you were an ordinary German and had views shared by the regime nothing was likely to happen to you. Is anything incorrect in that description?
You have set a new standard for stupidity. If its because of your condition, it still doesn't excuse you.
-
So you still can't answer?
I already have, you are so stupid, you just don't understand.
Nazi Germany wasn't a democracy, and if you belonged to certain ethnicities or had certain opinions, you could count on trouble. If you were an ordinary German and had views shared by the regime nothing was likely to happen to you. Is anything incorrect in that description?
You have set a new standard for stupidity. If its because of your condition, it still doesn't excuse you.
Is anything incorrect in that description? If the description is correct, than Nazi Germany didn't kill law-abiding citizens.
-
So you still can't answer?
I already have, you are so stupid, you just don't understand.
Nazi Germany wasn't a democracy, and if you belonged to certain ethnicities or had certain opinions, you could count on trouble. If you were an ordinary German and had views shared by the regime nothing was likely to happen to you. Is anything incorrect in that description?
You have set a new standard for stupidity. If its because of your condition, it still doesn't excuse you.
Is anything incorrect in that description? If the description is correct, than Nazi Germany didn't kill law-abiding citizens.
Duhhh. why don't you go crawl back in your cave, play with your hitler doll and drool over your shiny pictures.
-
So you still can't answer?
I already have, you are so stupid, you just don't understand.
Nazi Germany wasn't a democracy, and if you belonged to certain ethnicities or had certain opinions, you could count on trouble. If you were an ordinary German and had views shared by the regime nothing was likely to happen to you. Is anything incorrect in that description?
You have set a new standard for stupidity. If its because of your condition, it still doesn't excuse you.
Is anything incorrect in that description? If the description is correct, than Nazi Germany didn't kill law-abiding citizens.
Duhhh.
Odeon made an incorrect statement: law-abiding citizens got killed in Nazi Germany. Do you have anything but Hollywood propaganda shit to prove that with?
-
So you still can't answer?
I already have, you are so stupid, you just don't understand.
Nazi Germany wasn't a democracy, and if you belonged to certain ethnicities or had certain opinions, you could count on trouble. If you were an ordinary German and had views shared by the regime nothing was likely to happen to you. Is anything incorrect in that description?
You have set a new standard for stupidity. If its because of your condition, it still doesn't excuse you.
Is anything incorrect in that description? If the description is correct, than Nazi Germany didn't kill law-abiding citizens.
Duhhh.
Odeon made an incorrect statement: law-abiding citizens got killed in Nazi Germany. Do you have anything but Hollywood propaganda shit to prove that with?
Are you really this stupid, or are you just pulling my chain. Because I thought I had met the worlds most ignorant person, but you seem eager to take his place.
-
So you still can't answer?
I already have, you are so stupid, you just don't understand.
Nazi Germany wasn't a democracy, and if you belonged to certain ethnicities or had certain opinions, you could count on trouble. If you were an ordinary German and had views shared by the regime nothing was likely to happen to you. Is anything incorrect in that description?
You have set a new standard for stupidity. If its because of your condition, it still doesn't excuse you.
Is anything incorrect in that description? If the description is correct, than Nazi Germany didn't kill law-abiding citizens.
Duhhh.
Odeon made an incorrect statement: law-abiding citizens got killed in Nazi Germany. Do you have anything but Hollywood propaganda shit to prove that with?
Are you really this stupid, or are you just pulling my chain. Because I thought I had met the worlds most ignorant person, but you seem eager to take his place.
I don't know what you mean. If you think they killed "Aryan" law-abiding Germans randomly, you are the stupid one. The Soviets killed law-abiding citizens, sometimes after a kangaroo court farce and sometimes without even that. That wasn't the case in Nazi Germany, whether you like that fact or not.
-
So you still can't answer?
I already have, you are so stupid, you just don't understand.
Nazi Germany wasn't a democracy, and if you belonged to certain ethnicities or had certain opinions, you could count on trouble. If you were an ordinary German and had views shared by the regime nothing was likely to happen to you. Is anything incorrect in that description?
You have set a new standard for stupidity. If its because of your condition, it still doesn't excuse you.
Is anything incorrect in that description? If the description is correct, than Nazi Germany didn't kill law-abiding citizens.
Duhhh.
Odeon made an incorrect statement: law-abiding citizens got killed in Nazi Germany. Do you have anything but Hollywood propaganda shit to prove that with?
Are you really this stupid, or are you just pulling my chain. Because I thought I had met the worlds most ignorant person, but you seem eager to take his place.
I don't know what you mean. If you think they killed "Aryan" law-abiding Germans randomly, you are the stupid one. The Soviets killed law-abiding citizens, sometimes after a kangaroo court farce and sometimes without even that. That wasn't the case in Nazi Germany, whether you like that fact or not.
\
Yep, you just took his place.
-
But speak out what you mean then. I guess you couldn't point out all European countries on a map, but you "know" that Nazi Germany killed law-abiding citizens?
-
If you don't want to understand, you don't understand.
I never want to understand any of the shit that dribbles from your mouth, I'm sure I'd :kapow:
-
So you still can't answer?
I already have, you are so stupid, you just don't understand.
Nazi Germany wasn't a democracy, and if you belonged to certain ethnicities or had certain opinions, you could count on trouble. If you were an ordinary German and had views shared by the regime nothing was likely to happen to you. Is anything incorrect in that description?
You have set a new standard for stupidity. If its because of your condition, it still doesn't excuse you.
Is anything incorrect in that description? If the description is correct, than Nazi Germany didn't kill law-abiding citizens.
See, that's the problem right there, the state decided who was law-abiding based on a persons race, religion or political ideals. That's just fucking insane, just like you. So anything else you try to associate with those fuckstain Nazis is just plain fucking insane too and is completely invalid.
-
So you still can't answer?
I already have, you are so stupid, you just don't understand.
Nazi Germany wasn't a democracy, and if you belonged to certain ethnicities or had certain opinions, you could count on trouble. If you were an ordinary German and had views shared by the regime nothing was likely to happen to you. Is anything incorrect in that description?
You have set a new standard for stupidity. If its because of your condition, it still doesn't excuse you.
Is anything incorrect in that description? If the description is correct, than Nazi Germany didn't kill law-abiding citizens.
See, that's the problem right there, the state decided who was law-abiding based on a persons race, religion or political ideals. That's just fucking insane, just like you. So anything else you try to associate with those fuckstain Nazis is just plain fucking insane too and is completely invalid.
But they followed the book. They had laws where it was stated that Jews didn't have full citizenship, that communism and insults against Hitler, defeatism etc was illegal.
So they didn't have a law book that said one thing and acted otherwise in reality. Everyone in Nazi Germany was perfectly aware of whether the regime might have disliked them or not.
Is it so much better with "democracy", where the members of the parliament decide above the people's head what's legal and not? Isn't is as self-righteous?
-
Another thing you idiots have missed: I'm not a Nazi, I'm an anarchist. I just still think that many of Hitler's ideas were correct, but in principle I'm against the state, which is a big no-no among Nazis.
-
By the way: the Nazis did not kill law-abiding people; it was very well known that Jews didn't have full civil rights in the Third Reich and it was illegal to be a communist or say anything insulting about Hitler. In the Third Reich you did not get randomly arrested and killed, like you were in the Soviet Union. But I understand it's embarrassing for John Lennon that the Nazi legal system was safer than the Soviet. ::)
Of course they killed law-abiding citizens!
They killed people who had broken no laws just for being Polish or Jewish or having a disability.
-
By the way: the Nazis did not kill law-abiding people; it was very well known that Jews didn't have full civil rights in the Third Reich and it was illegal to be a communist or say anything insulting about Hitler. In the Third Reich you did not get randomly arrested and killed, like you were in the Soviet Union. But I understand it's embarrassing for John Lennon that the Nazi legal system was safer than the Soviet. ::)
Of course they killed law-abiding citizens!
They killed people who had broken no laws just for being Polish or Jewish or having a disability.
Uhm, like I said, Jews didn't have full citizenship and Poles were enemies in the war. Some disabled people were actually killed after their relatives had asked Hitler to give them eutanasia.
-
So you still can't answer?
I already have, you are so stupid, you just don't understand.
Nazi Germany wasn't a democracy, and if you belonged to certain ethnicities or had certain opinions, you could count on trouble. If you were an ordinary German and had views shared by the regime nothing was likely to happen to you. Is anything incorrect in that description?
You have set a new standard for stupidity. If its because of your condition, it still doesn't excuse you.
Is anything incorrect in that description? If the description is correct, than Nazi Germany didn't kill law-abiding citizens.
Duhhh.
Odeon made an incorrect statement: law-abiding citizens got killed in Nazi Germany. Do you have anything but Hollywood propaganda shit to prove that with?
Are you really this stupid, or are you just pulling my chain. Because I thought I had met the worlds most ignorant person, but you seem eager to take his place.
I don't know what you mean. If you think they killed "Aryan" law-abiding Germans randomly, you are the stupid one. The Soviets killed law-abiding citizens, sometimes after a kangaroo court farce and sometimes without even that. That wasn't the case in Nazi Germany, whether you like that fact or not.
Plenty of Jewish law-abiding citizens in the pre-war Germany, whether you like it or not.
-
So you still can't answer?
I already have, you are so stupid, you just don't understand.
Nazi Germany wasn't a democracy, and if you belonged to certain ethnicities or had certain opinions, you could count on trouble. If you were an ordinary German and had views shared by the regime nothing was likely to happen to you. Is anything incorrect in that description?
You have set a new standard for stupidity. If its because of your condition, it still doesn't excuse you.
Is anything incorrect in that description? If the description is correct, than Nazi Germany didn't kill law-abiding citizens.
See, that's the problem right there, the state decided who was law-abiding based on a persons race, religion or political ideals. That's just fucking insane, just like you. So anything else you try to associate with those fuckstain Nazis is just plain fucking insane too and is completely invalid.
But they followed the book. They had laws where it was stated that Jews didn't have full citizenship, that communism and insults against Hitler, defeatism etc was illegal.
So they didn't have a law book that said one thing and acted otherwise in reality. Everyone in Nazi Germany was perfectly aware of whether the regime might have disliked them or not.
Is it so much better with "democracy", where the members of the parliament decide above the people's head what's legal and not? Isn't is as self-righteous?
They started killing Jews before they tried justifying what they did by changing the law. I thought you had read up on history but apparently you missed this. Silly little Nazi twat.
-
Another thing you idiots have missed: I'm not a Nazi, I'm an anarchist. I just still think that many of Hitler's ideas were correct, but in principle I'm against the state, which is a big no-no among Nazis.
If it looks like a Nazi, talks like a Nazi and acts like a Nazi, it's a Nazi.
-
By the way: the Nazis did not kill law-abiding people; it was very well known that Jews didn't have full civil rights in the Third Reich and it was illegal to be a communist or say anything insulting about Hitler. In the Third Reich you did not get randomly arrested and killed, like you were in the Soviet Union. But I understand it's embarrassing for John Lennon that the Nazi legal system was safer than the Soviet. ::)
Of course they killed law-abiding citizens!
They killed people who had broken no laws just for being Polish or Jewish or having a disability.
Uhm, like I said, Jews didn't have full citizenship and Poles were enemies in the war. Some disabled people were actually killed after their relatives had asked Hitler to give them eutanasia.
I'd laugh but millions of people died and here you are glorifying the killers.
-
Another thing you idiots have missed: I'm not a Nazi, I'm an anarchist. I just still think that many of Hitler's ideas were correct, but in principle I'm against the state, which is a big no-no among Nazis.
If it looks like a Nazi, talks like a Nazi and acts like a Nazi, it's a Nazi.
So you're a commie then? If you're against free guns, against free speech and lots of other things, and, above all, sympathize with Muslims, you're a communist.
-
Another thing you idiots have missed: I'm not a Nazi, I'm an anarchist. I just still think that many of Hitler's ideas were correct, but in principle I'm against the state, which is a big no-no among Nazis.
If it looks like a Nazi, talks like a Nazi and acts like a Nazi, it's a Nazi.
So you're a commie then? If you're against free guns, against free speech and lots of other things, and, above all, sympathize with Muslims, you're a communist.
Just admit to being a Nazi and you'll feel relieved. Why hide behind the anarchist bullshit that you keep getting wrong in any case?
-
I am an anarchist. Though if you're a commie yourself, you'd deny that anarchists can be racists and insist that all anarchists are leftists. Wrong.
-
I am an anarchist. Though if you're a commie yourself, you'd deny that anarchists can be racists and insist that all anarchists are leftists. Wrong.
Yes dear. /pats the Nazi pony on the head
-
Why do German "autonomous" say that they're not leftists then?
-
Go back to playing with the Hitler doll. Daddy is busy at the moment.
-
Coward. You'll regret it when the towelheads take over this piece-of-shit country.
-
So Lit got there all right, then? :P
funny. :laugh:
-
Ah, yes, it makes sense to compare Nazi Germany to modern-day Sweden. What a fucking nutcase you are.
Yes, it does. They usually don't kille people physically here, but there is character-assasination, like when you oppose immigration and other PC shit.
Considering how much you hate sweden, Lit, I'd say that your not opposing immigration has more to do with your misanthropy and therefore desire to spread your suffering around that anything else.
By the way: the Nazis did not kill law-abiding people; it was very well known that Jews didn't have full civil rights in the Third Reich and it was illegal to be a communist or say anything insulting about Hitler. In the Third Reich you did not get randomly arrested and killed, like you were in the Soviet Union. But I understand it's embarrassing for John Lennon that the Nazi legal system was safer than the Soviet. ::)
Uhm, like I said, Jews didn't have full citizenship and Poles were enemies in the war. Some disabled people were actually killed after their relatives had asked Hitler to give them eutanasia.
Lit, you seem to think "citizen" and "person" are the same thing- Odeon's initial statement wasn't about citizens and neither was yours. You switched halfway through.
They killed quite a few of the law-abiding people instead.
See?
I am an anarchist. Though if you're a commie yourself, you'd deny that anarchists can be racists and insist that all anarchists are leftists. Wrong.
Why the hell would an anarchist equate citizenship with personhood? More to the point, why would you care so much about laws?
-
Why the hell would an anarchist equate citizenship with personhood? More to the point, why would you care so much about laws?
I don't care about laws, I just wanted to point out that Nazi Germany wasn't more oppressive in this respect than the "democracies" of today, which says a hell of a lot more about the "democracies".
And yes, I like to spread my suffering, especially to people who don't share my values. Just idiots and cowards want the people to be defenseless against the tyrants, like we are in Europe.
-
:LMAO:
-
Why the hell would an anarchist equate citizenship with personhood? More to the point, why would you care so much about laws?
I don't care about reality, therefore I just wanted to point out that Nazi Germany wasn't more oppressive in this respect than the "democracies" of today, which says a hell of a lot more about the "democracies".
Fixed.
-
:LMAO:
Sorry, just going to have to step in and interrupt the laughter. Most credible moral philosophers don't believe in political obligation these days - so really in academia Lit has more backing than you tbh. Might want to start by reading A. John Simmons, Joseph Raz, Noam Chomsky and so on...
(btw I have spent today in the library pouring over books on the whole matter - so if you fancy arguing here, go for it. Make sure you read some books first mind)
-
:LMAO:
Sorry, just going to have to step in and interrupt the laughter. Most credible moral philosophers don't believe in political obligation these days - so really in academia Lit has more backing than you tbh. Might want to start by reading A. John Simmons, Joseph Raz, Noam Chomsky and so on...
(btw I have spent today in the library pouring over books on the whole matter - so if you fancy arguing here, go for it. Make sure you be able to match my level of pretention first; if you manage to best me without citing the same books I have chosen to read I'll feel like a loser for wasting my day)
Fixed.
-
:LMAO:
Sorry, just going to have to step in and interrupt the laughter. Most credible moral philosophers don't believe in political obligation these days - so really in academia Lit has more backing than you tbh. Might want to start by reading A. John Simmons, Joseph Raz, Noam Chomsky and so on...
(btw I have spent today in the library pouring over books on the whole matter - so if you fancy arguing here, go for it. Make sure you read some books first mind)
:LMAO:
-
There is no political obligation. How can that not be obvious to an intelligent, not self-deluding person?
But like I said before: it's much easier to accept the oppression and laugh at us who tell the truth.
-
:LMAO:
Sorry, just going to have to step in and interrupt the laughter. Most credible moral philosophers don't believe in political obligation these days - so really in academia Lit has more backing than you tbh. Might want to start by reading A. John Simmons, Joseph Raz, Noam Chomsky and so on...
(btw I have spent today in the library pouring over books on the whole matter - so if you fancy arguing here, go for it. Make sure you be able to match my level of pretention first; if you manage to best me without citing the same books I have chosen to read I'll feel like a loser for wasting my day)
Fixed.
Rather unfunny. Just thought I would point out that I chose to read about Political Obligation because its a way of getting my 3 essays that I have to do overlap, so really I have saved myself a lot of time.
I actually wonder if anyone else in the thread knows what Political Obligation actually is....
-
:LMAO:
Sorry, just going to have to step in and interrupt the laughter. Most credible moral philosophers don't believe in political obligation these days - so really in academia Lit has more backing than you tbh. Might want to start by reading A. John Simmons, Joseph Raz, Noam Chomsky and so on...
(btw I have spent today in the library pouring over books on the whole matter - so if you fancy arguing here, go for it. Make sure you be able to match my level of pretention first; if you manage to best me without citing the same books I have chosen to read I'll feel like a loser for wasting my day)
Fixed.
Rather unfunny. Just thought I would point out that I chose to read about Political Obligation because its a way of getting my 3 essays that I have to do overlap, so really I have saved myself a lot of time.
I actually wonder if anyone else in the thread knows what Political Obligation actually is....
I do, of course. It's the moral obligation to obey the laws of your state, which is absurd, at least if you're a rational person only believing in mutually volountarily agreements, and no such agreement, "social contract", between the people and state does exist, of course.
-
:LMAO:
Sorry, just going to have to step in and interrupt the laughter. Most credible moral philosophers don't believe in political obligation these days - so really in academia Lit has more backing than you tbh. Might want to start by reading A. John Simmons, Joseph Raz, Noam Chomsky and so on...
(btw I have spent today in the library pouring over books on the whole matter - so if you fancy arguing here, go for it. Make sure you be able to match my level of pretention first; if you manage to best me without citing the same books I have chosen to read I'll feel like a loser for wasting my day)
Fixed.
Rather unfunny. Just thought I would point out that I chose to read about Political Obligation because its a way of getting my 3 essays that I have to do overlap, so really I have saved myself a lot of time, which I instead wasted posting here.
I actually wonder if anyone else in the thread knows where the clitoris actually is, because I sure as hell don't....
fixed.
-
OK, John Lennon isn't oppressed by society except when it comes to the FRA law. When will John Lennon feel oppressed for real? When they force him to have a surveillance camera in his own home, so the government can watch him 24/7? When they put a VeriChip inplant into his skin? When they put a chip into his brain?
When that happens, it will be far too late for any resistance. But the foundation was laid by accepting gun "control".
-
OK, John Lennon isn't oppressed by society except when it comes to the FRA law. When will John Lennon feel oppressed for real? When they force him to have a surveillance camera in his own home, so the government can watch him 24/7? When they put a VeriChip inplant into his skin? When they put a chip into his brain?
When that happens, it will be far too late for any resistance. But the foundation was laid by accepting gun "control".
If you really want to get technical about where the foundation was laid it was way before gun control it was with the start of government itself
-
There is no political obligation. How can that not be obvious to an intelligent, not self-deluding person?
But like I said before: it's much easier to accept the oppression and laugh at us who tell the truth.
:LMAO:
-
:LMAO:
Sorry, just going to have to step in and interrupt the laughter. Most credible moral philosophers don't believe in political obligation these days - so really in academia Lit has more backing than you tbh. Might want to start by reading A. John Simmons, Joseph Raz, Noam Chomsky and so on...
(btw I have spent today in the library pouring over books on the whole matter - so if you fancy arguing here, go for it. Make sure you be able to match my level of pretention first; if you manage to best me without citing the same books I have chosen to read I'll feel like a loser for wasting my day)
Fixed.
Rather unfunny. Just thought I would point out that I chose to read about Political Obligation because its a way of getting my 3 essays that I have to do overlap, so really I have saved myself a lot of time.
I actually wonder if anyone else in the thread knows what Political Obligation actually is....
I thought it was hilarious, me.
-
OK, John Lennon isn't oppressed by society except when it comes to the FRA law. When will John Lennon feel oppressed for real? When they force him to have a surveillance camera in his own home, so the government can watch him 24/7? When they put a VeriChip inplant into his skin? When they put a chip into his brain?
When that happens, it will be far too late for any resistance. But the foundation was laid by accepting gun "control".
:rofl:
John Lennon is dead. You do know that, don't you?
-
:LMAO:
Sorry, just going to have to step in and interrupt the laughter. Most credible moral philosophers don't believe in political obligation these days - so really in academia Lit has more backing than you tbh. Might want to start by reading A. John Simmons, Joseph Raz, Noam Chomsky and so on...
(btw I have spent today in the library pouring over books on the whole matter - so if you fancy arguing here, go for it. Make sure you be able to match my level of pretention first; if you manage to best me without citing the same books I have chosen to read I'll feel like a loser for wasting my day)
Fixed.
Rather unfunny. Just thought I would point out that I chose to read about Political Obligation because its a way of getting my 3 essays that I have to do overlap, so really I have saved myself a lot of time.
I actually wonder if anyone else in the thread knows what Political Obligation actually is....
I thought it was hilarious, me.
No, stop it!
Lets have Hadron explain it all to us, who really don't know anything.
:hahaha:
-
OK, John Lennon isn't oppressed by society except when it comes to the FRA law. When will John Lennon feel oppressed for real? When they force him to have a surveillance camera in his own home, so the government can watch him 24/7? When they put a VeriChip inplant into his skin? When they put a chip into his brain?
When that happens, it will be far too late for any resistance. But the foundation was laid by accepting gun "control".
:rofl:
John Lennon is dead. You do know that, don't you?
Shot and killed by a handgun in the hands of a psycho, BTW ...
-
:LMAO:
Sorry, just going to have to step in and interrupt the laughter. Most credible moral philosophers don't believe in political obligation these days - so really in academia Lit has more backing than you tbh. Might want to start by reading A. John Simmons, Joseph Raz, Noam Chomsky and so on...
(btw I have spent today in the library pouring over books on the whole matter - so if you fancy arguing here, go for it. Make sure you be able to match my level of pretention first; if you manage to best me without citing the same books I have chosen to read I'll feel like a loser for wasting my day)
Fixed.
Rather unfunny. Just thought I would point out that I chose to read about Political Obligation because its a way of getting my 3 essays that I have to do overlap, so really I have saved myself a lot of time.
I actually wonder if anyone else in the thread knows what Political Obligation actually is....
I do, of course. It's the moral obligation to obey the laws of your state, which is absurd, at least if you're a rational person only believing in mutually volountarily agreements, and no such agreement, "social contract", between the people and state does exist, of course.
Aha - that would be the basic way of looking it. Though of course, how do we define a state, or even a moral obligation? What state are we obligated to, if any?
In fact I find it rather amusing that Odeon is essentially defending Nationalism, whilst also proclaiming himself to be a socialist. Hmm...
-
:LMAO:
Sorry, just going to have to step in and interrupt the laughter. Most credible moral philosophers don't believe in political obligation these days - so really in academia Lit has more backing than you tbh. Might want to start by reading A. John Simmons, Joseph Raz, Noam Chomsky and so on...
(btw I have spent today in the library pouring over books on the whole matter - so if you fancy arguing here, go for it. Make sure you be able to match my level of pretention first; if you manage to best me without citing the same books I have chosen to read I'll feel like a loser for wasting my day)
Fixed.
Rather unfunny. Just thought I would point out that I chose to read about Political Obligation because its a way of getting my 3 essays that I have to do overlap, so really I have saved myself a lot of time.
I actually wonder if anyone else in the thread knows what Political Obligation actually is....
I do, of course. It's the moral obligation to obey the laws of your state, which is absurd, at least if you're a rational person only believing in mutually volountarily agreements, and no such agreement, "social contract", between the people and state does exist, of course.
Aha - that would be the basic way of looking it. Though of course, how do we define a state, or even a moral obligation? What state are we obligated to, if any?
In fact I find it rather amusing that Odeon is essentially defending Nationalism, whilst also proclaiming himself to be a socialist. Hmm...
:green: :plus:
-
:LMAO:
Sorry, just going to have to step in and interrupt the laughter. Most credible moral philosophers don't believe in political obligation these days - so really in academia Lit has more backing than you tbh. Might want to start by reading A. John Simmons, Joseph Raz, Noam Chomsky and so on...
(btw I have spent today in the library pouring over books on the whole matter - so if you fancy arguing here, go for it. Make sure you be able to match my level of pretention first; if you manage to best me without citing the same books I have chosen to read I'll feel like a loser for wasting my day)
Fixed.
Rather unfunny. Just thought I would point out that I chose to read about Political Obligation because its a way of getting my 3 essays that I have to do overlap, so really I have saved myself a lot of time.
I actually wonder if anyone else in the thread knows what Political Obligation actually is....
I thought it was hilarious, me.
No, stop it!
Lets have Hadron explain it all to us, who really don't know anything.
There are practically libraries written on it, but for a starting point the Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy is good:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/political-obligation/
-
Magic sarcasm glasses dirty or something, Kiddo?
::)
-
From a Swedish board;
Redibo asks: "I would also very much like to know what you have against the police ... And you still have not answered why you believe you should have the right, or why you need, to carry weapons in town?" (This idiot hasn't understood anything.)
Litengris answers: "I have something against people who tell me that I cannot do certain things and then do just these things themselves. It is quite funny when a person dressed in dark blue uniform and has a gun and a baton around their waist and a ridiculous hat on the head turns up and says, 'You shall not bear arms. They are dangerous.' I mean, how the hell should I be able to take such a person seriously? Allow me to laugh over that nonsense. Haha :-)
When you use the word 'needs' to justify that people should not be allowed to carry weapons in town, it might mean anything. If you're saying that Axel does not have 'needs' but Johan has, it does not say very much actually. Axel might get a hardon by carrying, or perhaps he feels threatened by neighbours or so. It is impossible for you to say just why.
So don't come and say that Per but not Adolf needs just because you have said it. They may say the same about you."
If you don't think that the "state" is God or something, it's very surprising how people honestly can't understand that the state has its "rights" by brute force and nothing else and that it's as criminal as the mafia or even worse.
-
OK, John Lennon isn't oppressed by society except when it comes to the FRA law. When will John Lennon feel oppressed for real? When they force him to have a surveillance camera in his own home, so the government can watch him 24/7? When they put a VeriChip inplant into his skin? When they put a chip into his brain?
When that happens, it will be far too late for any resistance. But the foundation was laid by accepting gun "control".
:rofl:
John Lennon is dead. You do know that, don't you?
Shot and killed by a handgun in the hands of a psycho, BTW ...
Ironic, isn't it?
-
:LMAO:
Sorry, just going to have to step in and interrupt the laughter. Most credible moral philosophers don't believe in political obligation these days - so really in academia Lit has more backing than you tbh. Might want to start by reading A. John Simmons, Joseph Raz, Noam Chomsky and so on...
(btw I have spent today in the library pouring over books on the whole matter - so if you fancy arguing here, go for it. Make sure you be able to match my level of pretention first; if you manage to best me without citing the same books I have chosen to read I'll feel like a loser for wasting my day)
Fixed.
Rather unfunny. Just thought I would point out that I chose to read about Political Obligation because its a way of getting my 3 essays that I have to do overlap, so really I have saved myself a lot of time.
I actually wonder if anyone else in the thread knows what Political Obligation actually is....
I do, of course. It's the moral obligation to obey the laws of your state, which is absurd, at least if you're a rational person only believing in mutually volountarily agreements, and no such agreement, "social contract", between the people and state does exist, of course.
Aha - that would be the basic way of looking it. Though of course, how do we define a state, or even a moral obligation? What state are we obligated to, if any?
In fact I find it rather amusing that Odeon is essentially defending Nationalism, whilst also proclaiming himself to be a socialist. Hmm...
I'd be interested in hearing your arguments in favour of such a notion, right after you're finished explaining Political Obligation to us. Use your own words, btw, not links to sites that know more than you do. So far, the only thing you've managed to show is that you know how to enter search words into Google.
:hahaha:
-
:LMAO:
Sorry, just going to have to step in and interrupt the laughter. Most credible moral philosophers don't believe in political obligation these days - so really in academia Lit has more backing than you tbh. Might want to start by reading A. John Simmons, Joseph Raz, Noam Chomsky and so on...
(btw I have spent today in the library pouring over books on the whole matter - so if you fancy arguing here, go for it. Make sure you be able to match my level of pretention first; if you manage to best me without citing the same books I have chosen to read I'll feel like a loser for wasting my day)
Fixed.
Rather unfunny. Just thought I would point out that I chose to read about Political Obligation because its a way of getting my 3 essays that I have to do overlap, so really I have saved myself a lot of time.
I actually wonder if anyone else in the thread knows what Political Obligation actually is....
I do, of course. It's the moral obligation to obey the laws of your state, which is absurd, at least if you're a rational person only believing in mutually volountarily agreements, and no such agreement, "social contract", between the people and state does exist, of course.
Aha - that would be the basic way of looking it. Though of course, how do we define a state, or even a moral obligation? What state are we obligated to, if any?
In fact I find it rather amusing that Odeon is essentially defending Nationalism, whilst also proclaiming himself to be a socialist. Hmm...
I'd be interested in hearing your arguments in favour of such a notion, right after you're finished explaining Political Obligation to us. Use your own words, btw, not links to sites that know more than you do. So far, the only thing you've managed to show is that you know how to enter search words into Google.
:hahaha:
Nationalism was not in that article though, so I have at least proved I know how to use a module handbook and my Uni library (Reference: B. Goodwin, Using Political Ideas). Given that I have to write a paragraph or so on my essay, I may as well do it here, though I first have to finish off deciding what my argument is going to be.
-
OK, John Lennon isn't oppressed by society except when it comes to the FRA law. When will John Lennon feel oppressed for real? When they force him to have a surveillance camera in his own home, so the government can watch him 24/7? When they put a VeriChip inplant into his skin? When they put a chip into his brain?
When that happens, it will be far too late for any resistance. But the foundation was laid by accepting gun "control".
:rofl:
John Lennon is dead. You do know that, don't you?
Shot and killed by a handgun in the hands of a psycho, BTW ...
Ironic, isn't it?
Dontcha think?
-
If he hadn't been a pacifist but wearing a gun himself, he could have defended himself.
It proves that unarmed people are helpless against armed people, and only idiots think that cops are but henchmen for the criminal organisation calling itself "society".
-
:LMAO:
Sorry, just going to have to step in and interrupt the laughter. Most credible moral philosophers don't believe in political obligation these days - so really in academia Lit has more backing than you tbh. Might want to start by reading A. John Simmons, Joseph Raz, Noam Chomsky and so on...
(btw I have spent today in the library pouring over books on the whole matter - so if you fancy arguing here, go for it. Make sure you be able to match my level of pretention first; if you manage to best me without citing the same books I have chosen to read I'll feel like a loser for wasting my day)
Fixed.
Rather unfunny. Just thought I would point out that I chose to read about Political Obligation because its a way of getting my 3 essays that I have to do overlap, so really I have saved myself a lot of time.
I actually wonder if anyone else in the thread knows what Political Obligation actually is....
I do, of course. It's the moral obligation to obey the laws of your state, which is absurd, at least if you're a rational person only believing in mutually volountarily agreements, and no such agreement, "social contract", between the people and state does exist, of course.
Aha - that would be the basic way of looking it. Though of course, how do we define a state, or even a moral obligation? What state are we obligated to, if any?
In fact I find it rather amusing that Odeon is essentially defending Nationalism, whilst also proclaiming himself to be a socialist. Hmm...
I'd be interested in hearing your arguments in favour of such a notion, right after you're finished explaining Political Obligation to us. Use your own words, btw, not links to sites that know more than you do. So far, the only thing you've managed to show is that you know how to enter search words into Google.
:hahaha:
Nationalism was not in that article though, so I have at least proved I know how to use a module handbook and my Uni library (Reference: B. Goodwin, Using Political Ideas). Given that I have to write a paragraph or so on my essay, I may as well do it here, though I first have to finish off deciding what my argument is going to be.
Didn't I just tell you that references were a no-no? Your *own* words, remember? And ffs, stop making excuses when you are cornered.
-
If he hadn't been a pacifist but wearing a gun himself, he could have defended himself.
It proves that unarmed people are helpless against armed people, and only idiots think that cops are but henchmen for the criminal organisation calling itself "society".
It proves that it's too easy for a nutter like Chapman to buy a gun. It also proves that you are clueless, but then, we already knew that.
-
:LMAO:
Sorry, just going to have to step in and interrupt the laughter. Most credible moral philosophers don't believe in political obligation these days - so really in academia Lit has more backing than you tbh. Might want to start by reading A. John Simmons, Joseph Raz, Noam Chomsky and so on...
(btw I have spent today in the library pouring over books on the whole matter - so if you fancy arguing here, go for it. Make sure you be able to match my level of pretention first; if you manage to best me without citing the same books I have chosen to read I'll feel like a loser for wasting my day)
Fixed.
Rather unfunny. Just thought I would point out that I chose to read about Political Obligation because its a way of getting my 3 essays that I have to do overlap, so really I have saved myself a lot of time.
I actually wonder if anyone else in the thread knows what Political Obligation actually is....
I do, of course. It's the moral obligation to obey the laws of your state, which is absurd, at least if you're a rational person only believing in mutually volountarily agreements, and no such agreement, "social contract", between the people and state does exist, of course.
Aha - that would be the basic way of looking it. Though of course, how do we define a state, or even a moral obligation? What state are we obligated to, if any?
In fact I find it rather amusing that Odeon is essentially defending Nationalism, whilst also proclaiming himself to be a socialist. Hmm...
I'd be interested in hearing your arguments in favour of such a notion, right after you're finished explaining Political Obligation to us. Use your own words, btw, not links to sites that know more than you do. So far, the only thing you've managed to show is that you know how to enter search words into Google.
:hahaha:
Nationalism was not in that article though, so I have at least proved I know how to use a module handbook and my Uni library (Reference: B. Goodwin, Using Political Ideas). Given that I have to write a paragraph or so on my essay, I may as well do it here, though I first have to finish off deciding what my argument is going to be.
Didn't I just tell you that references were a no-no? Your *own* words, remember? And ffs, stop making excuses when you are cornered.
Actually coming to think of it I have better things to do than prove myself to you. You should watch the latest House instead, much more efficient way of understanding the issues involved with the social contract and by extension political obligation.
-
Nationalism was not in that article though, so I have at least proved I know how to use a module handbook and my Uni library (Reference: B. Goodwin, Using Political Ideas). Given that I have to write a paragraph or so on my essay, I may as well do it here, though I first have to finish off deciding what my argument is going to be.
Very good. Did you use the potty all by yourself today, too?
-
If he hadn't been a pacifist but wearing a gun himself, he could have defended himself.
It proves that unarmed people are helpless against armed people, and only idiots think that cops are but henchmen for the criminal organisation calling itself "society".
It proves that it's too easy for a nutter like Chapman to buy a gun. It also proves that you are clueless, but then, we already knew that.
OK, who'll defend us against the police and military after every citizen is disarmed? The police and military?
-
Actually coming to think of it I have better things to do than prove myself to you. You should watch the latest House instead, much more efficient way of understanding the issues involved with the social contract and by extension political obligation.
Yes, and on how saying whatever retarded thoughts come into your head tends to make people hate you.
-
If he hadn't been a pacifist but wearing a gun himself, he could have defended himself.
It proves that unarmed people are helpless against armed people, and only idiots think that cops are but henchmen for the criminal organisation calling itself "society".
It proves that it's too easy for a nutter like Chapman to buy a gun. It also proves that you are clueless, but then, we already knew that.
OK, who'll defend us against the police and military after every citizen is disarmed? The police and military?
Personally, I was just planning on using you as a human shield.
-
:LMAO:
Sorry, just going to have to step in and interrupt the laughter. Most credible moral philosophers don't believe in political obligation these days - so really in academia Lit has more backing than you tbh. Might want to start by reading A. John Simmons, Joseph Raz, Noam Chomsky and so on...
(btw I have spent today in the library pouring over books on the whole matter - so if you fancy arguing here, go for it. Make sure you be able to match my level of pretention first; if you manage to best me without citing the same books I have chosen to read I'll feel like a loser for wasting my day)
Fixed.
Rather unfunny. Just thought I would point out that I chose to read about Political Obligation because its a way of getting my 3 essays that I have to do overlap, so really I have saved myself a lot of time.
I actually wonder if anyone else in the thread knows what Political Obligation actually is....
I do, of course. It's the moral obligation to obey the laws of your state, which is absurd, at least if you're a rational person only believing in mutually volountarily agreements, and no such agreement, "social contract", between the people and state does exist, of course.
Aha - that would be the basic way of looking it. Though of course, how do we define a state, or even a moral obligation? What state are we obligated to, if any?
In fact I find it rather amusing that Odeon is essentially defending Nationalism, whilst also proclaiming himself to be a socialist. Hmm...
I'd be interested in hearing your arguments in favour of such a notion, right after you're finished explaining Political Obligation to us. Use your own words, btw, not links to sites that know more than you do. So far, the only thing you've managed to show is that you know how to enter search words into Google.
:hahaha:
Nationalism was not in that article though, so I have at least proved I know how to use a module handbook and my Uni library (Reference: B. Goodwin, Using Political Ideas). Given that I have to write a paragraph or so on my essay, I may as well do it here, though I first have to finish off deciding what my argument is going to be.
Didn't I just tell you that references were a no-no? Your *own* words, remember? And ffs, stop making excuses when you are cornered.
Actually coming to think of it I have better things to do than prove myself to you. You should watch the latest House instead, much more efficient way of understanding the issues involved with the social contract and by extension political obligation.
His insults is the least irritating thing. What's really irritating is that he knows very well that we're right but prefers to stick his head in the sand and hope that he'll be dead before VeriChip inplants become compulsory.
-
If he hadn't been a pacifist but wearing a gun himself, he could have defended himself.
It proves that unarmed people are helpless against armed people, and only idiots think that cops are but henchmen for the criminal organisation calling itself "society".
It proves that it's too easy for a nutter like Chapman to buy a gun. It also proves that you are clueless, but then, we already knew that.
OK, who'll defend us against the police and military after every citizen is disarmed? The police and military?
Personally, I was just planning on using you as a human shield.
So, you too admit that we're defenseless without guns but you too prefer to stick the head in the sand like an ostrich?
-
If he hadn't been a pacifist but wearing a gun himself, he could have defended himself.
It proves that unarmed people are helpless against armed people, and only idiots think that cops are but henchmen for the criminal organisation calling itself "society".
It proves that it's too easy for a nutter like Chapman to buy a gun. It also proves that you are clueless, but then, we already knew that.
OK, who'll defend us against the police and military after every citizen is disarmed? The police and military?
Personally, I was just planning on using you as a human shield.
So, you too admit that we're defenseless without guns but you too prefer to stick the head in the sand like an ostrich?
Nah, just saying I'm OK with the idea of having you incur bodily injury, especially if it beneifts me. :angel:
-
If he hadn't been a pacifist but wearing a gun himself, he could have defended himself.
It proves that unarmed people are helpless against armed people, and only idiots think that cops are but henchmen for the criminal organisation calling itself "society".
It proves that it's too easy for a nutter like Chapman to buy a gun. It also proves that you are clueless, but then, we already knew that.
OK, who'll defend us against the police and military after every citizen is disarmed? The police and military?
Personally, I was just planning on using you as a human shield.
So, you too admit that we're defenseless without guns but you too prefer to stick the head in the sand like an ostrich?
Nah, just saying I'm OK with the idea of having you incur bodily injury, especially if it beneifts me. :angel:
It'll never happen, wench! :arrr:
-
How can one not understand that it's actually better that a few people are totally meaninglessly killed by guns every now and then than that the whole population has to rely on the mercy of the authorities? Only an idiot or someone with slave mentality.
Swedes (and the Swedishized Finn) are stupid, naïve safoholics, but Americans should know better, since this right, the most precious of all, is a part of your constitution for this very reason.
-
How stupid can it be? Ban all cars, so no-one will die in a traffic accident. Ban all matches and lighters, so that no-one will die in an arson. Anyone can buy a car for $100 and matches and lighters cost about 50 cents and are sometimes just lying around anywhere. Outagerous! How big fires can't one create with a box of matches?
Oh, and a Japanese kid actually managed to kill 7 other kids with only a knife. In Japan you can only buy firearms to collect them, but this tricky kid fooled the fantastic gun control and did it with a knife. So you must also ban knives.
And electricity...should we ban electricity or all things that a kid or an idiot could put in a socket? Wait, they usually put knives and chisels there, so we'll ban it all, of course.
All these steps will make everyday life incredibly harder; you'll not be able to transport yourself or chop your food or lit a fire or use any electrical device, but hey, no price is too high to pay when it comes to the nice, warm, fuzzy feeling of security... ::)
-
"The penal code is the confession document of the legislators."
- Aksel Sandemose
He was the man who coined the expression "Jante", originally for the mentality of a narrow-minded Danish town, but nowadays usually an expression for the mentality in Sweden.
Do you understand what he meant with that, you passive-aggressive ostrich?
-
:LMAO:
Sorry, just going to have to step in and interrupt the laughter. Most credible moral philosophers don't believe in political obligation these days - so really in academia Lit has more backing than you tbh. Might want to start by reading A. John Simmons, Joseph Raz, Noam Chomsky and so on...
(btw I have spent today in the library pouring over books on the whole matter - so if you fancy arguing here, go for it. Make sure you be able to match my level of pretention first; if you manage to best me without citing the same books I have chosen to read I'll feel like a loser for wasting my day)
Fixed.
Rather unfunny. Just thought I would point out that I chose to read about Political Obligation because its a way of getting my 3 essays that I have to do overlap, so really I have saved myself a lot of time.
I actually wonder if anyone else in the thread knows what Political Obligation actually is....
I do, of course. It's the moral obligation to obey the laws of your state, which is absurd, at least if you're a rational person only believing in mutually volountarily agreements, and no such agreement, "social contract", between the people and state does exist, of course.
Aha - that would be the basic way of looking it. Though of course, how do we define a state, or even a moral obligation? What state are we obligated to, if any?
In fact I find it rather amusing that Odeon is essentially defending Nationalism, whilst also proclaiming himself to be a socialist. Hmm...
I'd be interested in hearing your arguments in favour of such a notion, right after you're finished explaining Political Obligation to us. Use your own words, btw, not links to sites that know more than you do. So far, the only thing you've managed to show is that you know how to enter search words into Google.
:hahaha:
Nationalism was not in that article though, so I have at least proved I know how to use a module handbook and my Uni library (Reference: B. Goodwin, Using Political Ideas). Given that I have to write a paragraph or so on my essay, I may as well do it here, though I first have to finish off deciding what my argument is going to be.
Didn't I just tell you that references were a no-no? Your *own* words, remember? And ffs, stop making excuses when you are cornered.
Actually coming to think of it I have better things to do than prove myself to you. You should watch the latest House instead, much more efficient way of understanding the issues involved with the social contract and by extension political obligation.
Copout. Then again, it's pretty much what I expected you would do. :hahaha:
Next!
-
If he hadn't been a pacifist but wearing a gun himself, he could have defended himself.
It proves that unarmed people are helpless against armed people, and only idiots think that cops are but henchmen for the criminal organisation calling itself "society".
It proves that it's too easy for a nutter like Chapman to buy a gun. It also proves that you are clueless, but then, we already knew that.
OK, who'll defend us against the police and military after every citizen is disarmed? The police and military?
All you need is love.
-
His insults is the least irritating thing. What's really irritating is that he knows very well that we're right but prefers to stick his head in the sand and hope that he'll be dead before VeriChip inplants become compulsory.
Actually it's the other way around. You know perfectly well that love is the answer, but it's so hard to just come out and say it with all the macho bullshit you try to impress the 13-yo's with.
-
His insults is the least irritating thing. What's really irritating is that he knows very well that we're right but prefers to stick his head in the sand and hope that he'll be dead before VeriChip inplants become compulsory.
Actually it's the other way around. You know perfectly well that love is the answer, but it's so hard to just come out and say it with all the macho bullshit you try to impress the 13-yo's with.
Planet Earth calls: the ones in power don't care about the love talk.
-
How can one not understand that it's actually better that a few people are totally meaninglessly killed by guns every now and then than that the whole population has to rely on the mercy of the authorities? Only an idiot or someone with slave mentality.
Swedes (and the Swedishized Finn) are stupid, naïve safoholics, but Americans should know better, since this right, the most precious of all, is a part of your constitution for this very reason.
Personally I'm all for PMS Elle's idea.
-
His insults is the least irritating thing. What's really irritating is that he knows very well that we're right but prefers to stick his head in the sand and hope that he'll be dead before VeriChip inplants become compulsory.
Actually it's the other way around. You know perfectly well that love is the answer, but it's so hard to just come out and say it with all the macho bullshit you try to impress the 13-yo's with.
Planet Earth calls: the ones in power don't care about the love talk.
It's OK, Lit. It really is. You can drop the act now.
-
If he hadn't been a pacifist but wearing a gun himself, he could have defended himself.
It proves that unarmed people are helpless against armed people, and only idiots think that cops are but henchmen for the criminal organisation calling itself "society".
It proves that it's too easy for a nutter like Chapman to buy a gun. It also proves that you are clueless, but then, we already knew that.
Not only that, but he was shot in the back by a total coward. Any real man with a claim against another would face off and if necessary, as in the case of challenging a pacifist, bring a gun for the challengee to use against him to make it a fair duel.
-
How can one not understand that it's actually better that a few people are totally meaninglessly killed by guns every now and then than that the whole population has to rely on the mercy of the authorities? Only an idiot or someone with slave mentality.
Swedes (and the Swedishized Finn) are stupid, naïve safoholics, but Americans should know better, since this right, the most precious of all, is a part of your constitution for this very reason.
Personally I'm all for PMS Elle's idea.
OK, but how does my hooking up with Adam Gontier save the world?
-
:LMAO:
Sorry, just going to have to step in and interrupt the laughter. Most credible moral philosophers don't believe in political obligation these days - so really in academia Lit has more backing than you tbh. Might want to start by reading A. John Simmons, Joseph Raz, Noam Chomsky and so on...
(btw I have spent today in the library pouring over books on the whole matter - so if you fancy arguing here, go for it. Make sure you be able to match my level of pretention first; if you manage to best me without citing the same books I have chosen to read I'll feel like a loser for wasting my day)
Fixed.
Rather unfunny. Just thought I would point out that I chose to read about Political Obligation because its a way of getting my 3 essays that I have to do overlap, so really I have saved myself a lot of time.
I actually wonder if anyone else in the thread knows what Political Obligation actually is....
I do, of course. It's the moral obligation to obey the laws of your state, which is absurd, at least if you're a rational person only believing in mutually volountarily agreements, and no such agreement, "social contract", between the people and state does exist, of course.
Aha - that would be the basic way of looking it. Though of course, how do we define a state, or even a moral obligation? What state are we obligated to, if any?
In fact I find it rather amusing that Odeon is essentially defending Nationalism, whilst also proclaiming himself to be a socialist. Hmm...
I'd be interested in hearing your arguments in favour of such a notion, right after you're finished explaining Political Obligation to us. Use your own words, btw, not links to sites that know more than you do. So far, the only thing you've managed to show is that you know how to enter search words into Google.
:hahaha:
Nationalism was not in that article though, so I have at least proved I know how to use a module handbook and my Uni library (Reference: B. Goodwin, Using Political Ideas). Given that I have to write a paragraph or so on my essay, I may as well do it here, though I first have to finish off deciding what my argument is going to be.
Didn't I just tell you that references were a no-no? Your *own* words, remember? And ffs, stop making excuses when you are cornered.
Actually coming to think of it I have better things to do than prove myself to you. You should watch the latest House instead, much more efficient way of understanding the issues involved with the social contract and by extension political obligation.
Copout. Then again, it's pretty much what I expected you would do. :hahaha:
Next!
We shall see what mark my essay on it gets :)
-
If he hadn't been a pacifist but wearing a gun himself, he could have defended himself.
It proves that unarmed people are helpless against armed people, and only idiots think that cops are but henchmen for the criminal organisation calling itself "society".
It proves that it's too easy for a nutter like Chapman to buy a gun. It also proves that you are clueless, but then, we already knew that.
Not only that, but he was shot in the back by a total coward. Any real man with a claim against another would face off and if necessary, as in the case of challenging a pacifist, bring a gun for the challengee to use against him to make it a fair duel.
We had a Vice President (Burr) and a Treasurer (Hamilton) duel to the death with pistols. Poor Alexander Hamilton should have known that Burr was an experience shooter. That guy got pwned.
As a famous person in such a huge ass city (that had bad crime at the time), Lennon should have had good security and probably a gun himself. Crazies had an easier time getting guns at that time compared to now, and it can still happen today. A crazy person could have obtained the same gun off of the black market today, even if he was not allowed to do so legally. Felons can buy guns from private sales and from arms dealers (back door deals). How do you think people rob banks and such in nations that do not have legalized guns? It sure doesn't happen nearly as often as it does here, but it does occur. Most of the people in prison here are in for drug related offenses though.
-
:LMAO:
Sorry, just going to have to step in and interrupt the laughter. Most credible moral philosophers don't believe in political obligation these days - so really in academia Lit has more backing than you tbh. Might want to start by reading A. John Simmons, Joseph Raz, Noam Chomsky and so on...
(btw I have spent today in the library pouring over books on the whole matter - so if you fancy arguing here, go for it. Make sure you be able to match my level of pretention first; if you manage to best me without citing the same books I have chosen to read I'll feel like a loser for wasting my day)
Fixed.
Rather unfunny. Just thought I would point out that I chose to read about Political Obligation because its a way of getting my 3 essays that I have to do overlap, so really I have saved myself a lot of time.
I actually wonder if anyone else in the thread knows what Political Obligation actually is....
I do, of course. It's the moral obligation to obey the laws of your state, which is absurd, at least if you're a rational person only believing in mutually volountarily agreements, and no such agreement, "social contract", between the people and state does exist, of course.
Aha - that would be the basic way of looking it. Though of course, how do we define a state, or even a moral obligation? What state are we obligated to, if any?
In fact I find it rather amusing that Odeon is essentially defending Nationalism, whilst also proclaiming himself to be a socialist. Hmm...
I'd be interested in hearing your arguments in favour of such a notion, right after you're finished explaining Political Obligation to us. Use your own words, btw, not links to sites that know more than you do. So far, the only thing you've managed to show is that you know how to enter search words into Google.
:hahaha:
Nationalism was not in that article though, so I have at least proved I know how to use a module handbook and my Uni library (Reference: B. Goodwin, Using Political Ideas). Given that I have to write a paragraph or so on my essay, I may as well do it here, though I first have to finish off deciding what my argument is going to be.
Didn't I just tell you that references were a no-no? Your *own* words, remember? And ffs, stop making excuses when you are cornered.
Actually coming to think of it I have better things to do than prove myself to you. You should watch the latest House instead, much more efficient way of understanding the issues involved with the social contract and by extension political obligation.
Copout. Then again, it's pretty much what I expected you would do. :hahaha:
Next!
We shall see what mark my essay on it gets :)
Care to elaborate on any of the bullshit assumptions you've been spreading here, or will you be writing essays on them, too?
-
I do think it's quite impressive that Mr. Mark and Lit find the time and energy to post on here on top of doing all that library research and fellating each other.
-
Such dedication is unusual these days.
-
I do think it's quite impressive that Mr. Mark and Lit find the time and energy to post on here on top of doing all that library research and fellating each other.
Good job I value the integrated approach, then, is it not?
-
How stupid can it be? Ban all cars, so no-one will die in a traffic accident. Ban all matches and lighters, so that no-one will die in an arson. Anyone can buy a car for $100 and matches and lighters cost about 50 cents and are sometimes just lying around anywhere. Outagerous! How big fires can't one create with a box of matches?
Oh, and a Japanese kid actually managed to kill 7 other kids with only a knife. In Japan you can only buy firearms to collect them, but this tricky kid fooled the fantastic gun control and did it with a knife. So you must also ban knives.
And electricity...should we ban electricity or all things that a kid or an idiot could put in a socket? Wait, they usually put knives and chisels there, so we'll ban it all, of course.
All these steps will make everyday life incredibly harder; you'll not be able to transport yourself or chop your food or lit a fire or use any electrical device, but hey, no price is too high to pay when it comes to the nice, warm, fuzzy feeling of security... ::)
Here in Australia it is illegal to carry a knife in public without a good reason (like you just bought some knives, you are a chef etc). Certain types of knives are just outright banned like butterfy knives etc.
-
If he hadn't been a pacifist but wearing a gun himself, he could have defended himself.
It proves that unarmed people are helpless against armed people, and only idiots think that cops are but henchmen for the criminal organisation calling itself "society".
It proves that it's too easy for a nutter like Chapman to buy a gun. It also proves that you are clueless, but then, we already knew that.
Not only that, but he was shot in the back by a total coward. Any real man with a claim against another would face off and if necessary, as in the case of challenging a pacifist, bring a gun for the challengee to use against him to make it a fair duel.
Idiot. Not that I support the murder of John Lennon for a second, but if you objectively have a good reason for killing someone, he must already have done a very great unjust to you. Why on Earth would you give him a "fair chance" of killing you on top of what he has already done to you? It's not the moral superior who wins but the best shot.
And I assume that you're not consistent enough to think that the pigs should give an unarmed burglar or robber a gun to give him a "fair chance".
By the way, the brave and competent Swedish police shot a 16 yo kid in the leg yesterday. He was "threatening" them with a soft air gun. The pigs really show over and over again that they can handle guns much more responsibly than "average people".
-
I do think it's quite impressive that Mr. Mark and Lit find the time and energy to post on here on top of doing all that library research and fellating each other.
We cannot let you or the pacifist or the guy who plays Mr. macho man with his guns but in reality is as much of a law-abiding sheep as anyone post your nonsense here without logical objections.
-
Here in Australia it is illegal to carry a knife in public without a good reason (like you just bought some knives, you are a chef etc). Certain types of knives are just outright banned like butterfy knives etc.
Same here. It's just a tiny problem, just like with the gun law: the criminals don't give a shit about the knife law either, so the law just makes law-abiding people defenseless, just like the gun law.
-
I do think it's quite impressive that Mr. Mark and Lit find the time and energy to post on here on top of doing all that library research and fellating each other.
Good job I value the integrated approach, then, is it not?
Was Lit's head in your lap while you typed that?
-
Yer head will be in yer own lap, wench! :arrr:
-
If he hadn't been a pacifist but wearing a gun himself, he could have defended himself.
It proves that unarmed people are helpless against armed people, and only idiots think that cops are but henchmen for the criminal organisation calling itself "society".
It proves that it's too easy for a nutter like Chapman to buy a gun. It also proves that you are clueless, but then, we already knew that.
Not only that, but he was shot in the back by a total coward. Any real man with a claim against another would face off and if necessary, as in the case of challenging a pacifist, bring a gun for the challengee to use against him to make it a fair duel.
Idiot. Not that I support the murder of John Lennon for a second, but if you objectively have a good reason for killing someone, he must already have done a very great unjust to you. Why on Earth would you give him a "fair chance" of killing you on top of what he has already done to you? It's not the moral superior who wins but the best shot.
And I assume that you're not consistent enough to think that the pigs should give an unarmed burglar or robber a gun to give him a "fair chance".
By the way, the brave and competent Swedish police shot a 16 yo kid in the leg yesterday. He was "threatening" them with a soft air gun. The pigs really show over and over again that they can handle guns much more responsibly than "average people".
No, you idiot, it is about the proprieties of who is MORE right! I am not only the better man, but also the better shot. I can prove it in direct competition - in a fair fight. I have proven it in shooting games many times. I know that's not real life, but it is a real game of life.
It becomes a matter of resolve, once carried to the endgame. How much resolve do you have for your way of thinking over your opponent's? If both have equal resolve, to the end of a duel, then the actual outcome of the match becomes moot, for both parties have made their points totally obvious to those who are willing to take the game to mind.
You are a moron if you think that acceptance of, or even submission to an authority figure, is the same as caving to a superior opponent. A police officer is not an opponent, you fool, but merely an arm of the law of the land you live in. You can defeat a police officer only in the realm of the courts, not the streets, dipshit!
BTW, if you think that the attack on John Lennon was an above board and straight forward challenge between two honest men, then you are NOT a BRAVE pirate, but a scum of the earth, backshooter. Lennon was shot first in the back by a coward.
I am glad now that you did not have the guts to become an American citizen at my first invitation, almost three years ago, because I would have made good on my earlier offer and there would be yet another gun in the hands of a coward/loser. Don't you realise that it is because of you types that all the gun laws have been proposed in this free land, attempting to remove basic freedoms from us who CAN actually manage the responsibility of personal self protection.
You certainly have more history to learn about the land and times from which I sprang, you fucking idiot. Do you really think for an instant that I have not actually faced real life gunfire on more than a few occasions? Do you think I am innocent? Do you think that none of the pain I have caused ever matters to me? Do you think the pain I feel ever goes away? Do you think I am still here, because I have been lucky, all those times? Do you think that I hold my head down out of shame? Do you think that maybe, I might be as able as it seems?
Do you think I am asking for your respect - you're wrong. I want you to fuck off and leave ME out of your world.
I am NOT a part of it!
-
You have a very limited intellect.
I pointed out specifically that I didn't think the John Lennon murder was justified in any way.
What I said what that if you had a real reason for killing someone, you wouldn't need be to be a gentleman to him and meet him in an "honest" fight, because a person that you think deserves to die has no right at all to be treated in a "fair" way, becuase then he wouldn't deserve being killed in the first place.
One single person cannot "win" over the pigs, but if you think that the people as a whole doesn't have the shadow of a chance, even if all of them are armed, you are the loser, because then you may have how many guns you want; you have capitulated for "society" and its oppression anyway, like any law-abiding European gun owner.
-
You have a very limited intellect.
I pointed out specifically that I didn't think the John Lennon murder was justified in any way.
What I said what that if you had a real reason for killing someone, you wouldn't need be to be a gentleman to him and meet him in an "honest" fight, because a person that you think deserves to die has no right at all to be treated in a "fair" way, becuase then he wouldn't deserve being killed in the first place.
One single person cannot "win" over the pigs, but if you think that the people as a whole doesn't have the shadow of a chance, even if all of them are armed, you are the loser, because then you may have how many guns you want; you have capitulated for "society" and its oppression anyway, like any law-abiding European gun owner.
Quoted for pure, ribald cowardice. This is a great representation of the differences between us.
Don't you even realise that you have just forfeited every BRAVE argument that you have ever started with this one statement? Limited intellect? Yeah!
There is more to it all than being brave, for one must also be true!
:hahaha:
Seriously, I am done with you and I will not respond any further.
-
OK, I'll start a monologue then. You don't have to be brave if you think you're moralically justified to kill; you just do it.
Speaking of US gun laws; the man I quoted from that Swedish board said: "The US government allows the people there to arm themselves easily, becuase they don't fear an uprising from them anyway."
QED by the idiot above.
-
If he hadn't been a pacifist but wearing a gun himself, he could have defended himself.
It proves that unarmed people are helpless against armed people, and only idiots think that cops are but henchmen for the criminal organisation calling itself "society".
It proves that it's too easy for a nutter like Chapman to buy a gun. It also proves that you are clueless, but then, we already knew that.
Not only that, but he was shot in the back by a total coward. Any real man with a claim against another would face off and if necessary, as in the case of challenging a pacifist, bring a gun for the challengee to use against him to make it a fair duel.
Idiot. Not that I support the murder of John Lennon for a second, but if you objectively have a good reason for killing someone, he must already have done a very great unjust to you. Why on Earth would you give him a "fair chance" of killing you on top of what he has already done to you? It's not the moral superior who wins but the best shot.
And I assume that you're not consistent enough to think that the pigs should give an unarmed burglar or robber a gun to give him a "fair chance".
By the way, the brave and competent Swedish police shot a 16 yo kid in the leg yesterday. He was "threatening" them with a soft air gun. The pigs really show over and over again that they can handle guns much more responsibly than "average people".
Take your fucking meds already. You don't make any sense.
-
I do think it's quite impressive that Mr. Mark and Lit find the time and energy to post on here on top of doing all that library research and fellating each other.
We cannot let you or the pacifist or the guy who plays Mr. macho man with his guns but in reality is as much of a law-abiding sheep as anyone post your nonsense here without logical objections.
"Logical"?
:LMAO:
-
I do think it's quite impressive that Mr. Mark and Lit find the time and energy to post on here on top of doing all that library research and fellating each other.
Good job I value the integrated approach, then, is it not?
Was Lit's head in your lap while you typed that?
I thought it *was* Lit. :laugh:
-
OK, I'll start a monologue then.
I thought you started it months ago?!
-
If he hadn't been a pacifist but wearing a gun himself, he could have defended himself.
It proves that unarmed people are helpless against armed people, and only idiots think that cops are but henchmen for the criminal organisation calling itself "society".
It proves that it's too easy for a nutter like Chapman to buy a gun. It also proves that you are clueless, but then, we already knew that.
Not only that, but he was shot in the back by a total coward. Any real man with a claim against another would face off and if necessary, as in the case of challenging a pacifist, bring a gun for the challengee to use against him to make it a fair duel.
Idiot. Not that I support the murder of John Lennon for a second, but if you objectively have a good reason for killing someone, he must already have done a very great unjust to you. Why on Earth would you give him a "fair chance" of killing you on top of what he has already done to you? It's not the moral superior who wins but the best shot.
And I assume that you're not consistent enough to think that the pigs should give an unarmed burglar or robber a gun to give him a "fair chance".
By the way, the brave and competent Swedish police shot a 16 yo kid in the leg yesterday. He was "threatening" them with a soft air gun. The pigs really show over and over again that they can handle guns much more responsibly than "average people".
Take your fucking meds already. You don't make any sense.
Read about what Rosseau or Schopenhauer thought about duels and being "fair" to your enemies, then you might understand why you don't owe anything to a deadly enemy.
-
If he hadn't been a pacifist but wearing a gun himself, he could have defended himself.
It proves that unarmed people are helpless against armed people, and only idiots think that cops are but henchmen for the criminal organisation calling itself "society".
It proves that it's too easy for a nutter like Chapman to buy a gun. It also proves that you are clueless, but then, we already knew that.
Not only that, but he was shot in the back by a total coward. Any real man with a claim against another would face off and if necessary, as in the case of challenging a pacifist, bring a gun for the challengee to use against him to make it a fair duel.
Idiot. Not that I support the murder of John Lennon for a second, but if you objectively have a good reason for killing someone, he must already have done a very great unjust to you. Why on Earth would you give him a "fair chance" of killing you on top of what he has already done to you? It's not the moral superior who wins but the best shot.
And I assume that you're not consistent enough to think that the pigs should give an unarmed burglar or robber a gun to give him a "fair chance".
By the way, the brave and competent Swedish police shot a 16 yo kid in the leg yesterday. He was "threatening" them with a soft air gun. The pigs really show over and over again that they can handle guns much more responsibly than "average people".
Take your fucking meds already. You don't make any sense.
Read about what Rosseau or Schopenhauer thought about duels and being "fair" to your enemies, then you might understand why you don't owe anything to a deadly enemy.
The way Lennon was Mark Chapman's "deadly enemy"? ::)
-
If he hadn't been a pacifist but wearing a gun himself, he could have defended himself.
It proves that unarmed people are helpless against armed people, and only idiots think that cops are but henchmen for the criminal organisation calling itself "society".
It proves that it's too easy for a nutter like Chapman to buy a gun. It also proves that you are clueless, but then, we already knew that.
Not only that, but he was shot in the back by a total coward. Any real man with a claim against another would face off and if necessary, as in the case of challenging a pacifist, bring a gun for the challengee to use against him to make it a fair duel.
Idiot. Not that I support the murder of John Lennon for a second, but if you objectively have a good reason for killing someone, he must already have done a very great unjust to you. Why on Earth would you give him a "fair chance" of killing you on top of what he has already done to you? It's not the moral superior who wins but the best shot.
And I assume that you're not consistent enough to think that the pigs should give an unarmed burglar or robber a gun to give him a "fair chance".
By the way, the brave and competent Swedish police shot a 16 yo kid in the leg yesterday. He was "threatening" them with a soft air gun. The pigs really show over and over again that they can handle guns much more responsibly than "average people".
Take your fucking meds already. You don't make any sense.
Read about what Rosseau or Schopenhauer thought about duels and being "fair" to your enemies, then you might understand why you don't owe anything to a deadly enemy.
The way Lennon was Mark Chapman's "deadly enemy"? ::)
Do you also suffer from dementia or dyslexia? I said that the murder of Lennon was not justified IMHO. I talk about when you hold real grudges against someone.
-
If he hadn't been a pacifist but wearing a gun himself, he could have defended himself.
It proves that unarmed people are helpless against armed people, and only idiots think that cops are but henchmen for the criminal organisation calling itself "society".
It proves that it's too easy for a nutter like Chapman to buy a gun. It also proves that you are clueless, but then, we already knew that.
Not only that, but he was shot in the back by a total coward. Any real man with a claim against another would face off and if necessary, as in the case of challenging a pacifist, bring a gun for the challengee to use against him to make it a fair duel.
Idiot. Not that I support the murder of John Lennon for a second, but if you objectively have a good reason for killing someone, he must already have done a very great unjust to you. Why on Earth would you give him a "fair chance" of killing you on top of what he has already done to you? It's not the moral superior who wins but the best shot.
And I assume that you're not consistent enough to think that the pigs should give an unarmed burglar or robber a gun to give him a "fair chance".
By the way, the brave and competent Swedish police shot a 16 yo kid in the leg yesterday. He was "threatening" them with a soft air gun. The pigs really show over and over again that they can handle guns much more responsibly than "average people".
Take your fucking meds already. You don't make any sense.
Read about what Rosseau or Schopenhauer thought about duels and being "fair" to your enemies, then you might understand why you don't owe anything to a deadly enemy.
The way Lennon was Mark Chapman's "deadly enemy"? ::)
Isn't it amazing how some of these guys think that they can win some argument by identifying some source that they have often grossly misinterpreted. They seem to think that if only we knew what they had read that we would be as smart as they are, while all the time, what we have read from the same sources took us to opposing conclusions from the very beginning.
It's that "fractally wrong" thing popping up again, isn't it?
-
So if Rosseau says that you should kill your enemies in an ambush if possible, you would interpret it as?
-
Judging from the way you rant on about guns, it was all Lennon's fault.
Know this: I consider your opinions utterly worthless at best, and actively harmful and dangerous at worst. The only reason why I'm engaging in these conversations is boredom. Well, and smacking you on the head with your own delusions, every now and then. You're like the traffic accident people must slow down to have a look at, even though they know that there's nothing they can do. They know that they'd probably help the human cause more by simply moving on and letting the paramedics deal with the dying corpses. But still they stop to see the burning flesh.
I think that tells us something about me, unfortunately.
-
Oh, it's OK, it'd be an insult getting sympathy from you. Hadron, Zer0 and many other people like me. 8)
-
Hadron is young. I haven't given up on him yet.
-
There are many many more people who share my views, just for you information.
If Schopenhauer says: "Only clowns duel. If you actually hold a deadly grudge against someone, why would you give him the opportunity to take your life, which he grossly has violated before?"
How could you interpret that as anything else than that if you think you're justified to kill someone, you shall not do it in a duel?
-
There are many many more people who share my views, just for you information.
There are a few, yes. Something in the water, probably.
-
More from the Swedish forum:
You seriously don't listen to what I say. I can't, in any way, whatever you argue that I am wrong, come up with something that would justify that everyone should have the right to bear arms in the city. To be a police is a profession, which in some cases means to prevent crime. Crimes require criminal, some criminals do crimes where the criminals carry weapons, then of course the police must be armed.
But then one might ask the question: "Why just people who call themselves 'the police'?"
But based on your rape reasoning where you seriously mean that you see all police people as criminals. Well, then I assume that you are a tiny anarchist shit who think they know everything and thus do not need any laws and rules and think the world would function fine without them. Consequently, I have no reason to sit and jaw with you, because you still do not come with any relevant counter-arguments. To pour water on a goose gets you much more than to argue with you ...
The truth might not be what you thought it were.
But have a nice life, I can comfort myself with that this country will never allow that liberal weapons laws, so you will not legally be able to walk around with your long-awaited penis-extender you so clearly need, so I can continue to go around in town and feel safe.
You are afraid of people carrying guns but you feel secure with people carrying guns? It sounds a bit like a contradiction.
The same "arguments" from the law-abiding jerks everywhere. Just ad hominem and ostrich behaviour. Becuase the truth, namely that the state is but an enormous criminal organisation is simply too unpleasant.
"Litengris" means "little pig", btw, which probably refers to the pigs in blue uniforms. 8)
-
A delusional fuckwit quoting other delusional fuckwits. Definitely something in the water.
-
I still haven't got an answer to this: When did a majority of the people give up their rights to a minority of 10-20 persons? Can you give me a date?
Because any relation that isn't totally voluntarily from all parties involved is of course nothing but a might-is-right "relation".
And then I still (just for the argumentation) accept "democracy" which also is a simplification; only individuals can make agreements, so democracy is in fact the terror of the majority against everybody else. That's why anarchy is the only acceptable.
-
:yawn:
What makes you think that anyone cares here? We're not THAT kind of support forum.
Sorry, did I interrupt something? Do go on.
-
How can one not understand that it's actually better that a few people are totally meaninglessly killed by guns every now and then than that the whole population has to rely on the mercy of the authorities? Only an idiot or someone with slave mentality.
Swedes (and the Swedishized Finn) are stupid, naïve safoholics, but Americans should know better, since this right, the most precious of all, is a part of your constitution for this very reason.
I just wonder,
How would have having a gun have possibly saved John Lennon's life?
How would more weapons have possibly prevented the bloodflowing in Germany yesterday?
What if many people would have had handguns yesterday?
What if all, untrained, panicking and very angry had tried using those guns.
Many more people would have been killed.
The father of the boy that committed this crime deserves a thorough investigation.
Even if he had permission to have that many arms, how could he keep them in a place where his kid had access?
-
Here in Australia it is illegal to carry a knife in public without a good reason (like you just bought some knives, you are a chef etc). Certain types of knives are just outright banned like butterfy knives etc.
Same here. It's just a tiny problem, just like with the gun law: the criminals don't give a shit about the knife law either, so the law just makes law-abiding people defenseless, just like the gun law.
Well that's the thing, anyone who wants to carry around dangerous knives because they feel they have a human right to are the kind of people I don't want wandering around where I live. Any sensible law abiding citizen with half a brain doesn't need to or would want to carry knives which are designed for fighting or killing. Any deranged lunatic can say they are just carrying them for protection when in reality they are just looking for someone to mug or kill. If you were really good at martial arts you wouldn't need a gun or a knife to protect yourself.
Plus it gives the cops another reason to charge or lock someone up when frankly there are too many assholes on the streets that need that these days.
-
Here in Australia it is illegal to carry a knife in public without a good reason (like you just bought some knives, you are a chef etc). Certain types of knives are just outright banned like butterfy knives etc.
Same here. It's just a tiny problem, just like with the gun law: the criminals don't give a shit about the knife law either, so the law just makes law-abiding people defenseless, just like the gun law.
Well that's the thing, anyone who wants to carry around dangerous knives because they feel they have a human right to are the kind of people I don't want wandering around where I live. Any sensible law abiding citizen with half a brain doesn't need to or would want to carry knives which are designed for fighting or killing. Any deranged lunatic can say they are just carrying them for protection when in reality they are just looking for someone to mug or kill. If you were really good at martial arts you wouldn't need a gun or a knife to protect yourself.
Plus it gives the cops another reason to charge or lock someone up when frankly there are too many assholes on the streets that need that these days.
So phlexor, what is some 2m, 150+ kg Maori bodybuilder decided that you made him pissed off enough that he wanted to knock you to the ground and slam your face repeatedly against the pavement till you were unconscious? Or maybe put you in a headlock and break your neck? WTF would you do to defend yourself if you're unarmed??? MOST people out there are not well trained enough with martial arts to defend themselves.(And)FURTHERMORE, martial arts are NOT magic! No matter what you may have been led to believe, if your opponent(or better yet if you're OUTNUMBERED)is sufficiently bigger, heavier and stronger than you martial arts become ineffective. If you Australians are comfortable with letting big, strong, muscular thugz slap people around as they see fit then you go right fucking ahead....Its YOUR Funeral! :hahaha:
But even Americans, as dumb as they can be sometimes, arent dumb enough to put up with this shit! Part of the reason I stand where I do on this issue has to do with my OWN EXPERIENCE of having my (parked)car rushed by a mob of at least 20 drunk streetpunks who were planning to DRAG me out of my car cuz the drivers side window was down but as they opened the door I pulled out a 10" knife and they decided it wasnt worth it so they back off and decided to just stand their till the cops came(who let ME go home and arrested those punks for disorderly conduct! :pwned:). So yeah, I carry a knife and if you fuck with me I'll cut your fucking throat out! ;) :green: :laugh: I dont use it to threaten or attack innocent people but I sure as fucking hell WOULD use it in my defense. Im thinking though of getting a TASER soon.... :evillaugh:
-
I have carried a knife before in my purse for my own defense and I have carried a handgun before for the same reason.
I'm not a deranged lunatic and I certainly was not going around looking for trouble, but I did feel the need to have the means to defend myself when I drove alone across the country even though I have studied karate.
-
I have carried a knife before in my purse for my own defense and I have carried a handgun before for the same reason.
I'm not a deranged lunatic and I certainly was not going around looking for trouble, but I did feel the need to have the means to defend myself when I drove alone across the country even though I have studied karate.
Thats a smart thing to do. Especially if you're a woman. I can pretty much GUARANTEE that 100% of rapists prefer unarmed victims. :indeed:
-
Here in Australia it is illegal to carry a knife in public without a good reason (like you just bought some knives, you are a chef etc). Certain types of knives are just outright banned like butterfy knives etc.
Same here. It's just a tiny problem, just like with the gun law: the criminals don't give a shit about the knife law either, so the law just makes law-abiding people defenseless, just like the gun law.
Well that's the thing, anyone who wants to carry around dangerous knives because they feel they have a human right to are the kind of people I don't want wandering around where I live. Any sensible law abiding citizen with half a brain doesn't need to or would want to carry knives which are designed for fighting or killing. Any deranged lunatic can say they are just carrying them for protection when in reality they are just looking for someone to mug or kill. If you were really good at martial arts you wouldn't need a gun or a knife to protect yourself.
Plus it gives the cops another reason to charge or lock someone up when frankly there are too many assholes on the streets that need that these days.
So phlexor, what is some 2m, 150+ kg Maori bodybuilder decided that you made him pissed off enough that he wanted to knock you to the ground and slam your face repeatedly against the pavement till you were unconscious? Or maybe put you in a headlock and break your neck? WTF would you do to defend yourself if you're unarmed??? MOST people out there are not well trained enough with martial arts to defend themselves.(And)FURTHERMORE, martial arts are NOT magic! No matter what you may have been led to believe, if your opponent(or better yet if you're OUTNUMBERED)is sufficiently bigger, heavier and stronger than you martial arts become ineffective. If you Australians are comfortable with letting big, strong, muscular thugz slap people around as they see fit then you go right fucking ahead....Its YOUR Funeral! :hahaha:
But even Americans, as dumb as they can be sometimes, arent dumb enough to put up with this shit! Part of the reason I stand where I do on this issue has to do with my OWN EXPERIENCE of having my (parked)car rushed by a mob of at least 20 drunk streetpunks who were planning to DRAG me out of my car cuz the drivers side window was down but as they opened the door I pulled out a 10" knife and they decided it wasnt worth it so they back off and decided to just stand their till the cops came(who let ME go home and arrested those punks for disorderly conduct! :pwned:). So yeah, I carry a knife and if you fuck with me I'll cut your fucking throat out! ;) :green: :laugh: I dont use it to threaten or attack innocent people but I sure as fucking hell WOULD use it in my defense. Im thinking though of getting a TASER soon.... :evillaugh:
Trusting on a weapon untrained is even more naive. Not hard for a toughened criminal to take it from you. And then you'll be assaulted with your own weapon.
-
:yawn:
What makes you think that anyone cares here? We're not THAT kind of support forum.
Sorry, did I interrupt something? Do go on.
Because you call me a lunatic etc but you refer to an "authority", which itself is the greatest criminal organisation there ever was, namely "society".
-
How can one not understand that it's actually better that a few people are totally meaninglessly killed by guns every now and then than that the whole population has to rely on the mercy of the authorities? Only an idiot or someone with slave mentality.
Swedes (and the Swedishized Finn) are stupid, naïve safoholics, but Americans should know better, since this right, the most precious of all, is a part of your constitution for this very reason.
I just wonder,
How would have having a gun have possibly saved John Lennon's life?
How would more weapons have possibly prevented the bloodflowing in Germany yesterday?
What if many people would have had handguns yesterday?
What if all, untrained, panicking and very angry had tried using those guns.
Many more people would have been killed.
The victims could have fired back and with some luck hit the shooter?
The father of the boy that committed this crime deserves a thorough investigation.
Even if he had permission to have that many arms, how could he keep them in a place where his kid had access?
Wrong thinking. You too don't understand that the "state" is a worse oppressor and murderer than all school shooters and gangsters there ever were.
-
I have carried a knife before in my purse for my own defense and I have carried a handgun before for the same reason.
I'm not a deranged lunatic and I certainly was not going around looking for trouble, but I did feel the need to have the means to defend myself when I drove alone across the country even though I have studied karate.
You can't discuss this in a serious way with most Europeans and obviously not with many Australians either. They have been brainwashed with antigun propaganda and belief in Big Brother for decades.
-
A Swedish article in one of the biggest Swedish papers, and of course they mention that the kids father "despite the normally very harsh German gunlaws had licenses for 16 firearms" and "that he didn't keep them locked up in a correct manner":
16 dödade i skolmassaker i Tyskland (http://dn.se/nyheter/varlden/flera-elever-doda-i-tysk-skolskjutning-1.818024)
But no-one questions why the police walks around with machine guns after the shooting is over. ::)
(http://dn.se/polopoly_fs/1.818295!image/2633752279.jpg_gen/derivatives/article-landscape/2633752279.jpg)
-
And in Sweden that newspaper is supposed to be a conservative paper, btw.
-
Here in Australia it is illegal to carry a knife in public without a good reason (like you just bought some knives, you are a chef etc). Certain types of knives are just outright banned like butterfy knives etc.
Same here. It's just a tiny problem, just like with the gun law: the criminals don't give a shit about the knife law either, so the law just makes law-abiding people defenseless, just like the gun law.
Well that's the thing, anyone who wants to carry around dangerous knives because they feel they have a human right to are the kind of people I don't want wandering around where I live. Any sensible law abiding citizen with half a brain doesn't need to or would want to carry knives which are designed for fighting or killing. Any deranged lunatic can say they are just carrying them for protection when in reality they are just looking for someone to mug or kill. If you were really good at martial arts you wouldn't need a gun or a knife to protect yourself.
Plus it gives the cops another reason to charge or lock someone up when frankly there are too many assholes on the streets that need that these days.
So phlexor, what is some 2m, 150+ kg Maori bodybuilder decided that you made him pissed off enough that he wanted to knock you to the ground and slam your face repeatedly against the pavement till you were unconscious? Or maybe put you in a headlock and break your neck? WTF would you do to defend yourself if you're unarmed??? MOST people out there are not well trained enough with martial arts to defend themselves.(And)FURTHERMORE, martial arts are NOT magic! No matter what you may have been led to believe, if your opponent(or better yet if you're OUTNUMBERED)is sufficiently bigger, heavier and stronger than you martial arts become ineffective. If you Australians are comfortable with letting big, strong, muscular thugz slap people around as they see fit then you go right fucking ahead....Its YOUR Funeral! :hahaha:
But even Americans, as dumb as they can be sometimes, arent dumb enough to put up with this shit! Part of the reason I stand where I do on this issue has to do with my OWN EXPERIENCE of having my (parked)car rushed by a mob of at least 20 drunk streetpunks who were planning to DRAG me out of my car cuz the drivers side window was down but as they opened the door I pulled out a 10" knife and they decided it wasnt worth it so they back off and decided to just stand their till the cops came(who let ME go home and arrested those punks for disorderly conduct! :pwned:). So yeah, I carry a knife and if you fuck with me I'll cut your fucking throat out! ;) :green: :laugh: I dont use it to threaten or attack innocent people but I sure as fucking hell WOULD use it in my defense. Im thinking though of getting a TASER soon.... :evillaugh:
Trusting on a weapon untrained is even more naive. Not hard for a toughened criminal to take it from you. And then you'll be assaulted with your own
weapon.
Training on how to use a pistol is a piece of cake and is READILY available here in the US. Besides, a 9mm bullet to the head of a toughened criminal will forfit them of the chance to assault me with my own weapon. :pwned: Gun-haters have been saying this shit for Years to scare gullible libtards out of arming themselves..... :violin:
-
:yawn:
What makes you think that anyone cares here? We're not THAT kind of support forum.
Sorry, did I interrupt something? Do go on.
Because you call me a lunatic etc but you refer to an "authority", which itself is the greatest criminal organisation there ever was, namely "society".
You *are* a lunatic. A certified one, too, afaik.
-
I have carried a knife before in my purse for my own defense and I have carried a handgun before for the same reason.
I'm not a deranged lunatic and I certainly was not going around looking for trouble, but I did feel the need to have the means to defend myself when I drove alone across the country even though I have studied karate.
You can't discuss this in a serious way with most Europeans and obviously not with many Australians either. They have been brainwashed with antigun propaganda and belief in Big Brother for decades.
And you're discussing it "seriously"? Anyone who doesn't agree with your delusions is "brainwashed" or a "communist".
See, Lit, you and your friend Depressed Mode here show again and again why weapons need to be controlled. I wouldn't have a problem with Dawg or Callaway carrying a gun, but you lack their common sense. You'd be a danger to yourself and your surroundings.
-
Meh I'm not worried about these gun laws here, I'm creative and resourceful enough to build my own primitive weapons whenever it's necessary to do so.
Anyway I believe guns shouldn't be banned, but instead a professional behavioral and firearms training program, psychological assessment and training to recognize legitimate hostile targets and use appropriate responses, and alternative defensive training (such as kick boxing, karate, etc) should be prerequisites for gun ownership. It's not the gun that's the real problem, it's the psychology of the person who's wields or owns it. If they're trained sufficiently to understand their weapon, how to disarm and secure it during non-use, have the right attitude using it, know alternative means to subdue a unarmed or knife armed opponent with non-lethal force, and ways to immobilize a target without lethal consequences with their firearm; then incidents of at least accidental or excessive force use fatalities by firearms should be reduced. Consider it like a basic form of police training. Sounds like a lot to obtain a weapon, but if you want to defend yourself, it would be worth learning all those things as well as owing a gun I'd think. Also the industry should strongly market and encourage the purchasing and usage of rubber bullets for home defense, as rubber bullets are very effective for subduing a person in debilitating pain, with a reduced chance of it turning into a fatality.
-
I have carried a knife before in my purse for my own defense and I have carried a handgun before for the same reason.
I'm not a deranged lunatic and I certainly was not going around looking for trouble, but I did feel the need to have the means to defend myself when I drove alone across the country even though I have studied karate.
You can't discuss this in a serious way with most Europeans and obviously not with many Australians either. They have been brainwashed with antigun propaganda and belief in Big Brother for decades.
And you're discussing it "seriously"? Anyone who doesn't agree with your delusions is "brainwashed" or a "communist".
See, Lit, you and your friend Depressed Mode here show again and again why weapons need to be controlled. I wouldn't have a problem with Dawg or Callaway carrying a gun, but you lack their common sense. You'd be a danger to yourself and your surroundings.
That it at all can cross your mind that someone can ever be considered to be a "danger" to themselves shows what you really think about personal freedom. I have all rights in the world to drink or drug myself to death, drive a car without a seatbelt or a motorcycle without a helmet, climb a mountain without any safety equipment, swim in an ocean full of sharks or put my cock in a mixer for that matter. That's not up to some cunt like you or any self-appointed, self-righteous bureaucrat to decide.
If you really believe in your "all you need is love" and gun restriction bullshit, leave that safe village you live in and move 10 kilometres to the northwest. You say we don't need any guns for our protection in Sweden, so prove it. Then you'll also be surrounded by your beloved Muslim friends.
-
Meh I'm not worried about these gun laws here, I'm creative and resourceful enough to build my own primitive weapons whenever it's necessary to do so.
Anyway I believe guns shouldn't be banned, but instead a professional behavioral and firearms training program, psychological assessment and training to recognize legitimate hostile targets and use appropriate responses, and alternative defensive training (such as kick boxing, karate, etc) should be prerequisites for gun ownership. It's not the gun that's the real problem, it's the psychology of the person who's wields or owns it. If they're trained sufficiently to understand their weapon, how to disarm and secure it during non-use, have the right attitude using it, know alternative means to subdue a unarmed or knife armed opponent with non-lethal force, and ways to immobilize a target without lethal consequences with their firearm; then incidents of at least accidental or excessive force use fatalities by firearms should be reduced. Consider it like a basic form of police training. Sounds like a lot to obtain a weapon, but if you want to defend yourself, it would be worth learning all those things as well as owing a gun I'd think. Also the industry should strongly market and encourage the purchasing and usage of rubber bullets for home defense, as rubber bullets are very effective for subduing a person in debilitating pain, with a reduced chance of it turning into a fatality.
How would physically handicapped people and old people be able to learn kick boxing or karate? And, like Depressed Mode, pointed out, it's nothing magic with karate. Most people can never become Bruce Lee, and ever he would have been helpless against a person with a firearm.
To obtain a one hand gun legally in Sweden, you have to go to a shooting club - if they let you in at all; a net buddy of mine with a perfectly clean record has waited for two years to be "accepted" in his local shooting club, and that's in the 4th largest city in Sweden - be a member for at least one year, often two years, and shoot the "gold series" in target shooting. During this time you're constantly being fed with antigun propaganda.
Legal gun owners in Sweden, who actually understand that the gun law is totally sick, don't even dare to reveal their real identities on an internet gun discussion board, because that might be enough to make them lose their licenses.
So all people that are heard of in the Swedish gun "debate" are the ones sucking Big Brother's cock. If they ever let a pro-gunner say anything, they do the same as our passive-aggressive Finnish ostrich here does to us: they ridicule and insult them. The same goes for people who are against immigration or anything else that Big Brother has decided is PC, for that matter.
-
How would physically handicapped people and old people be able to learn kick boxing or karate? And, like Depressed Mode, pointed out, it's nothing magic with karate. Most people can never become Bruce Lee, and ever he would have been helpless against a person with a firearm.
Well the idea is that, if you're dealing with a enraged unarmed, iron knuckled or knife armed attacker or a group of attackers who jump you before grabbing your gun out (ambush attack), you should know unarmed combat to free yourself and then if necessary, use your firearm. In case of an armed attacker, you'd try to read into their psychology (like facial expression, posture, level of sweat on their forehead, eye appearance and movement, coherence of their speech, etc) and anticipate their next move, attempt to calm the situation down and if that's failing or there's no time, try to shoot them if you know they're about to fire. You see what I'm getting at? You have to anticipate a situation where something happens too fast for you to grab your gun to respond. I suppose you could exclude unarmed combat training for those unable to do it, but it'll be difficult using your gun if your attacker sneaks up behind you, and has you knocked on the floor with their gun on your head before you can grab yours.
Training in the skills I suggest are useful not only to test your ability and competence to appropriately use and handle a firearm, but to properly handle complex situations that are life or death decisions with a few seconds to respond, and do so in a way that minimizes excessive force. Even if you do this kind of training out of official channels and illegally own a firearm, it's still a good idea to consider such training if applicable.
-
You're right that it'd be useful, but everything compulsory is totally against my principles.
-
How would physically handicapped people and old people be able to learn kick boxing or karate? And, like Depressed Mode, pointed out, it's nothing magic with karate. Most people can never become Bruce Lee, and ever he would have been helpless against a person with a firearm.
Well the idea is that, if you're dealing with a enraged unarmed, iron knuckled or knife armed attacker or a group of attackers who jump you before grabbing your gun out (ambush attack), you should know unarmed combat to free yourself and then if necessary, use your firearm. In case of an armed attacker, you'd try to read into their psychology (like facial expression, posture, level of sweat on their forehead, eye movement, coherence of their speech, etc) and anticipate their next move, attempt to calm the situation down and if that's failing or there's no time, try to shoot them if you know they're about to fire. You see what I'm getting at? You have to anticipate a situation where something happens too fast for you to grab your gun to respond. I suppose you could exclude unarmed combat training for those unable to do it, but it'll be difficult using your gun if your attacker sneaks up behind you, and has you knocked on the floor with their gun on your head before you can grab yours.
Training in the skills I suggest are useful not only to test your ability and competence to appropriately use and handle a firearm, but to properly handle complex situations that are life or death decisions with a few seconds to respond, and do so in a way that minimizes excessive force. Even if you do this kind of training out of official channels and illegally own a firearm, it's still a good idea to consider such training if applicable.
Well, the obvious solution will of course be walking around with a handgun in one hand, and a knife in the other. Always the gun in hand in time.
* imagines what it would look like in a supermarket *
I can see how owning a knife or a handgun could give a sense of safety when you are in a car, locked. Because you would have time to grab it. In other situations I think accidents are bound to happen. And I don't want to walk in a dark alley with a pistol in my hand in my pocket, to be able to react on every stranger I meet. Chance that I will hit someone out of a fear reaction when it was not necessary would be too big. Chance to get seriously hurt with my own weapon too.
I'll just keep carrying my keys as a boxing device in my hands. Ready to maim visibly someone who will attack me, but even more, ready to smash in a window if that happens. Because people will call cops sooner when their property gets damaged than when they hear a woman scream. Making a lot of noise is good anyway. And the sound of breaking glass will help.
-
How would physically handicapped people and old people be able to learn kick boxing or karate? And, like Depressed Mode, pointed out, it's nothing magic with karate. Most people can never become Bruce Lee, and ever he would have been helpless against a person with a firearm.
Well the idea is that, if you're dealing with a enraged unarmed, iron knuckled or knife armed attacker or a group of attackers who jump you before grabbing your gun out (ambush attack), you should know unarmed combat to free yourself and then if necessary, use your firearm. In case of an armed attacker, you'd try to read into their psychology (like facial expression, posture, level of sweat on their forehead, eye movement, coherence of their speech, etc) and anticipate their next move, attempt to calm the situation down and if that's failing or there's no time, try to shoot them if you know they're about to fire. You see what I'm getting at? You have to anticipate a situation where something happens too fast for you to grab your gun to respond. I suppose you could exclude unarmed combat training for those unable to do it, but it'll be difficult using your gun if your attacker sneaks up behind you, and has you knocked on the floor with their gun on your head before you can grab yours.
Training in the skills I suggest are useful not only to test your ability and competence to appropriately use and handle a firearm, but to properly handle complex situations that are life or death decisions with a few seconds to respond, and do so in a way that minimizes excessive force. Even if you do this kind of training out of official channels and illegally own a firearm, it's still a good idea to consider such training if applicable.
Well, the obvious solution will of course be walking around with a handgun in one hand, and a knife in the other. Always the gun in hand in time.
* imagines what it would look like in a supermarket *
I can see how owning a knife or a handgun could give a sense of safety when you are in a car, locked. Because you would have time to grab it. In other situations I think accidents are bound to happen. And I don't want to walk in a dark alley with a pistol in my hand in my pocket, to be able to react on every stranger I meet. Chance that I will hit someone out of a fear reaction when it was not necessary would be too big. Chance to get seriously hurt with my own weapon too.
I'll just keep carrying my keys as a boxing device in my hands. Ready to maim visibly someone who will attack me, but even more, ready to smash in a window if that happens. Because people will call cops sooner when their property gets damaged than when they hear a woman scream. Making a lot of noise is good anyway. And the sound of breaking glass will help.
You miss two points here, like most people:
1. The bad guys will always have guns anyway. They have them in countries where guns are totally banned and the minimum punishment for possession is several years. In Sweden it's a few months.
2. Governments don't make gun laws to save their citizens' lives or health. They make them to make sure that the citizens won't be able to resist state oppression or make a successful uprising. Because if they really cared about human lives and health, they would start with banning and restricting a lots of other things, that kill much, much more people, but they don't.
For instance: there are like 10 times more people killed by cars than guns in Sweden (if you don't count suicides; in fact a law-abiding Swede shoots himself every day on average). Yet you have never heard anyone say that you'd need a driver's license to buy a car or even that you'd be an adult to buy one. Why? Because you'd never get a chance to kill some politician with a car if not accidentally.
That's the cynical truth behind "gun control".
-
:yawn:
-
So when will you move to Angered or Bergsjön or Biskopsgården, these wonderful safe and enriched enclaves?
-
And look here, odeon: 25 of your beloved enrichers attacked a girl in Södertälje - again - but the investigation is shut down, despite the fact that she recognizes several of them and also has several witnesses, namely the Swedish men who helped her against the foreign subhumans: http://lt.se/nyheter/1.69787
If you move to one of the ghettos I proposed maybe some similarily enriching thing might happen to you or your loved ones.
-
How would physically handicapped people and old people be able to learn kick boxing or karate? And, like Depressed Mode, pointed out, it's nothing magic with karate. Most people can never become Bruce Lee, and ever he would have been helpless against a person with a firearm.
Well the idea is that, if you're dealing with a enraged unarmed, iron knuckled or knife armed attacker or a group of attackers who jump you before grabbing your gun out (ambush attack), you should know unarmed combat to free yourself and then if necessary, use your firearm. In case of an armed attacker, you'd try to read into their psychology (like facial expression, posture, level of sweat on their forehead, eye movement, coherence of their speech, etc) and anticipate their next move, attempt to calm the situation down and if that's failing or there's no time, try to shoot them if you know they're about to fire. You see what I'm getting at? You have to anticipate a situation where something happens too fast for you to grab your gun to respond. I suppose you could exclude unarmed combat training for those unable to do it, but it'll be difficult using your gun if your attacker sneaks up behind you, and has you knocked on the floor with their gun on your head before you can grab yours.
Training in the skills I suggest are useful not only to test your ability and competence to appropriately use and handle a firearm, but to properly handle complex situations that are life or death decisions with a few seconds to respond, and do so in a way that minimizes excessive force. Even if you do this kind of training out of official channels and illegally own a firearm, it's still a good idea to consider such training if applicable.
Well, the obvious solution will of course be walking around with a handgun in one hand, and a knife in the other. Always the gun in hand in time.
* imagines what it would look like in a supermarket *
I can see how owning a knife or a handgun could give a sense of safety when you are in a car, locked. Because you would have time to grab it. In other situations I think accidents are bound to happen. And I don't want to walk in a dark alley with a pistol in my hand in my pocket, to be able to react on every stranger I meet. Chance that I will hit someone out of a fear reaction when it was not necessary would be too big. Chance to get seriously hurt with my own weapon too.
I'll just keep carrying my keys as a boxing device in my hands. Ready to maim visibly someone who will attack me, but even more, ready to smash in a window if that happens. Because people will call cops sooner when their property gets damaged than when they hear a woman scream. Making a lot of noise is good anyway. And the sound of breaking glass will help.
You miss two points here, like most people:
1. The bad guys will always have guns anyway. They have them in countries where guns are totally banned and the minimum punishment for possession is several years. In Sweden it's a few months.
2. Governments don't make gun laws to save their citizens' lives or health. They make them to make sure that the citizens won't be able to resist state oppression or make a successful uprising. Because if they really cared about human lives and health, they would start with banning and restricting a lots of other things, that kill much, much more people, but they don't.
For instance: there are like 10 times more people killed by cars than guns in Sweden (if you don't count suicides; in fact a law-abiding Swede shoots himself every day on average). Yet you have never heard anyone say that you'd need a driver's license to buy a car or even that you'd be an adult to buy one. Why? Because you'd never get a chance to kill some politician with a car if not accidentally.
That's the cynical truth behind "gun control".
I miss the whole being at gunpoint. Yes.
Of course, bad guys, and girls will have access to guns. And they will not hesitate to use them if needed according to them. They will have better guns than I will have, they will have better skills with them than I will have.
I can chose being terrified of a possible gun in the pocket of every gloomy looking man or woman, and 'protect' myself by becoming one of 'them'. Thus making it more pressing for the bad boys and girls to use their guns. Or I can choose not to get involved in that spiral of weaponry. And be myself.
And yes, I know I'm a lucky girl. Never raped, only assaulted once. I know I now live in a very safe area. But I also know most rape happens by people you trust. Most beating up too. What will a gun do against that. Do you really expect me to live at gunpoint 24/7 because of my safety?
Don't think so.
I don't know what I would do if I lived in a country where gun possession is the rule in stead of the exception. No idea. Maybe I would have something with me in the car if I had to drive through dangerous places. But I do not live in a country where guns are the rule. And the bad guys and gals here know that. So they won't use their guns as soon as they would somewhere else.
-
I miss the whole being at gunpoint. Yes.
Of course, bad guys, and girls will have access to guns. And they will not hesitate to use them if needed according to them. They will have better guns than I will have, they will have better skills with them than I will have.
With free guns, how could the criminals possibly have better guns or skills than the law-abiding? The average criminal is a pretty bad shot, both in Europe and America, but s/he's of course nevertheless very dangerous.
I can chose being terrified of a possible gun in the pocket of every gloomy looking man or woman, and 'protect' myself by becoming one of 'them'. Thus making it more pressing for the bad boys and girls to use their guns. Or I can choose not to get involved in that spiral of weaponry. And be myself.
That's an invitation to getting attacked and a capitulation to the criminals. Did anyone ever fire a nuclear weapon during the cold war? No.
And yes, I know I'm a lucky girl. Never raped, only assaulted once. I know I now live in a very safe area. But I also know most rape happens by people you trust. Most beating up too. What will a gun do against that. Do you really expect me to live at gunpoint 24/7 because of my safety?
Don't think so.
It's no more "weird" to be constantly armed than constantly wearing your purse or wallet or mobile phone, even if the pacifists want you to believe otherwise.
I don't know what I would do if I lived in a country where gun possession is the rule in stead of the exception. No idea. Maybe I would have something with me in the car if I had to drive through dangerous places. But I do not live in a country where guns are the rule. And the bad guys and gals here know that. So they won't use their guns as soon as they would somewhere else.
Pim Fortuyn?
-
Would Pim Fortuyn with a gun have been able to stop the Asperger Animal Activist with a gun, from killing him?
Don't think so.
He did need more protection. Yes I will grant that. But him being armed would not have changed a thing.
The murderer was obsessed by killing Pim Fortuyn. And Pim walking with a gun in his hand, set to shoot, would not have stopped Volkert vd G.
-
Would Pim Fortuyn with a gun have been able to stop the Asperger Animal Activist with a gun, from killing him?
Don't think so.
He did need more protection. Yes I will grant that. But him being armed would not have changed a thing.
The murderer was obsessed by killing Pim Fortuyn. And Pim walking with a gun in his hand, set to shoot, would not have stopped Volkert vd G.
Why do you focus on the fact that the murderer was an animal activist, when the true resaon for killing Fortuyn was that he didn't tolerate the Islamization of your country and whole of Europe? Islam is a greater threat to the Netherlands, Europe and the whole planet than all guns in the world.
What you are saying is: "It's better to be 100% sure not to have a chance of defending yourself than having at least a 1% or 0.5% chance".
-
Would Pim Fortuyn with a gun have been able to stop the Asperger Animal Activist with a gun, from killing him?
Don't think so.
He did need more protection. Yes I will grant that. But him being armed would not have changed a thing.
The murderer was obsessed by killing Pim Fortuyn. And Pim walking with a gun in his hand, set to shoot, would not have stopped Volkert vd G.
Why do you focus on the fact that the murderer was an animal activist, when the true resaon for killing Fortuyn was that he didn't tolerate the Islamization of your country and whole of Europe? Islam is a greater threat to the Netherlands, Europe and the whole planet than all guns in the world.
What you are saying is: "It's better to be 100% sure not to have a chance of defending yourself than having at least a 1% or 0.5% chance".
No, not saying he did not need protection. That he did need. And he did not have it enough.
And Volkert did kill him because of animal activist reasons.
Not fair to blame islamic people for this murder.
If guns were common here, I think a lot of innocent muslims might have been killed as retribution for Pim Fortuyn being killed by an animal rights activist.
Glad guns are not common here.
-
No, not saying he did not need protection. That he did need. And he did not have it enough.
Yes, a gun is of course totally useless for protection...
And Volkert did kill him because of animal activist reasons.
Not fair to blame islamic people for this murder.
"He was assassinated during the 2002 Dutch national election campaign by militant animal rights activist Volkert van der Graaf, who claimed in court he had murdered Fortuyn to stop him from exploiting Muslims as "scapegoats" and targeting "the weak parts of society to score points" in seeking political power."
Pim Fortuyn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pim_Fortuyn)
Pwned.
If guns were common here, I think a lot of innocent muslims might have been killed as retribution for Pim Fortuyn being killed by an animal rights activist.
Oh, how sad if some Muslims would have gotten what they deserved been killed just for a Muslim lover killing a Dutch standing up for freedom of speech... :eyebrows:
-
In fact, one of the reasons for the ever harshening gun laws is that the Europeans shaun't be able to defend themselves against these animals.
-
In fact, one of the reasons for the ever harshening gun laws is that the Europeans shaun't be able to defend themselves against these animals.
Rifles for pest control.
Volkert was an animal rights activist. And he wanted to focus on that.
If you want to discuss a dutch murder with a fundamentalistic muslim involved, you'd better focus on the murder on Theo van Gogh. That was done by a fundamentalistic muslim. No doubt about that.
And just as Volkert vd G was just one apie, just one animal rights activist, and not an example of how all aspies and all animal rights activists are.
Just like that Mohammed B is not an example of how all muslims are.
Individual people, with individual extreme agendas.
People extrapolating that into universal truths about how the world is functioning are the ones polarising society more and more.
And still I can not see how Pim Fortuyn could have saved himself with a gun in his hand. Not even if he had it loaded and ready to shoot.
He was in an open place. The threat could have been anywhere. He should have had better protection. Bodyguards, people checking the place. But just having a gun would not have made any difference at all.
-
So when will you move to Angered or Bergsjön or Biskopsgården, these wonderful safe and enriched enclaves?
I used to live in Bergsjön. Three or four years, I think. It was safe, except for some racist morons eerily similar in attitude to yours. The people one had to fear were all Swedes.
Kind of tells you something, doesn't it?
-
And look here, odeon: 25 of your beloved enrichers attacked a girl in Södertälje - again - but the investigation is shut down, despite the fact that she recognizes several of them and also has several witnesses, namely the Swedish men who helped her against the foreign subhumans: http://lt.se/nyheter/1.69787
If you move to one of the ghettos I proposed maybe some similarily enriching thing might happen to you or your loved ones.
Maybe you should have a closer encounter with some of your tolerant Nazi heros, once someone told them you're polluting the gene pool with AS.
-
In fact, one of the reasons for the ever harshening gun laws is that the Europeans shaun't be able to defend themselves against these animals.
The main reason is that paranoid Nazi fucks such as yourself shouldn't be let anywhere near a gun. Come to think of it, you should be locked in. Again.
-
So when will you move to Angered or Bergsjön or Biskopsgården, these wonderful safe and enriched enclaves?
I used to live in Bergsjön. Three or four years, I think. It was safe, except for some racist morons eerily similar in attitude to yours. The people one had to fear were all Swedes.
Kind of tells you something, doesn't it?
That's called a counter reaction. And I know from Swedish boards that one pretty well known Swede in NSF lives there, yes. 8)
-
And look here, odeon: 25 of your beloved enrichers attacked a girl in Södertälje - again - but the investigation is shut down, despite the fact that she recognizes several of them and also has several witnesses, namely the Swedish men who helped her against the foreign subhumans: http://lt.se/nyheter/1.69787
If you move to one of the ghettos I proposed maybe some similarily enriching thing might happen to you or your loved ones.
Maybe you should have a closer encounter with some of your tolerant Nazi heros, once someone told them you're polluting the gene pool with AS.
Actually one of the more well known neo Nazis in America has an Aspie kid, whom he loves very much, so I kind of doubt that.
-
In fact, one of the reasons for the ever harshening gun laws is that the Europeans shaun't be able to defend themselves against these animals.
The main reason is that paranoid Nazi fucks such as yourself shouldn't be let anywhere near a gun. Come to think of it, you should be locked in. Again.
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
So when will you move to Angered or Bergsjön or Biskopsgården, these wonderful safe and enriched enclaves?
I used to live in Bergsjön. Three or four years, I think. It was safe, except for some racist morons eerily similar in attitude to yours. The people one had to fear were all Swedes.
Kind of tells you something, doesn't it?
That's called a counter reaction. And I know from Swedish boards that one pretty well known Swede in NSF lives there, yes. 8)
Counter reaction to WHAT? The problems were all caused by these people.
-
And look here, odeon: 25 of your beloved enrichers attacked a girl in Södertälje - again - but the investigation is shut down, despite the fact that she recognizes several of them and also has several witnesses, namely the Swedish men who helped her against the foreign subhumans: http://lt.se/nyheter/1.69787
If you move to one of the ghettos I proposed maybe some similarily enriching thing might happen to you or your loved ones.
Maybe you should have a closer encounter with some of your tolerant Nazi heros, once someone told them you're polluting the gene pool with AS.
Actually one of the more well known neo Nazis in America has an Aspie kid, whom he loves very much, so I kind of doubt that.
I'm talking about your beloved Nazi Germany.
But I can promise you that if that US Nazi hadn't had a kid with AS, he would have made life miserable for Aspies. You know it, I know it. Why deny it?
-
In fact, one of the reasons for the ever harshening gun laws is that the Europeans shaun't be able to defend themselves against these animals.
The main reason is that paranoid Nazi fucks such as yourself shouldn't be let anywhere near a gun. Come to think of it, you should be locked in. Again.
Nice gramophone no comment on the topic though
-
In fact, one of the reasons for the ever harshening gun laws is that the Europeans shaun't be able to defend themselves against these animals.
The main reason is that paranoid Nazi fucks such as yourself shouldn't be let anywhere near a gun. Come to think of it, you should be locked in. Again.
Nice gramophone no comment on the topic though
The gramophone is a comment; in Sweden we call persons who constantly repeat themselves "broken gramophone records".
-
Meh, we are not America or a violent 3rd world country. Things are pretty safe here in Australia. Sure crime happens but nothing to write home about compared to some places. I don't feel the need to carry a gun or a knife and I don't get bothered by other people much. If you want to carry a gun or a knife, go right ahead, I really don't give a shit.
-
In fact, one of the reasons for the ever harshening gun laws is that the Europeans shaun't be able to defend themselves against these animals.
The main reason is that paranoid Nazi fucks such as yourself shouldn't be let anywhere near a gun. Come to think of it, you should be locked in. Again.
Nice gramophone no comment on the topic though
The gramophone is a comment; in Sweden we call persons who constantly repeat themselves "broken gramophone records".
Well I just sell them at antique flea markets and would get over $500 at least for that one 8)
-
In fact, one of the reasons for the ever harshening gun laws is that the Europeans shaun't be able to defend themselves against these animals.
The main reason is that paranoid Nazi fucks such as yourself shouldn't be let anywhere near a gun. Come to think of it, you should be locked in. Again.
Nice gramophone no comment on the topic though
The gramophone is a comment; in Sweden we call persons who constantly repeat themselves "broken gramophone records".
Well I just sell them at antique flea markets and would get over $500 at least for that one 8)
I don't have an old gramophone but I have hundreds or even maybe a thousand of old gramophone records after my grandfather. 8)
-
In fact, one of the reasons for the ever harshening gun laws is that the Europeans shaun't be able to defend themselves against these animals.
The main reason is that paranoid Nazi fucks such as yourself shouldn't be let anywhere near a gun. Come to think of it, you should be locked in. Again.
Nice gramophone no comment on the topic though
The gramophone is a comment; in Sweden we call persons who constantly repeat themselves "broken gramophone records".
You should have it as a signature, then. :zoinks:
-
Judging from the way you rant on about guns, it was all Lennon's fault.
Know this: I consider your opinions utterly worthless at best, and actively harmful and dangerous at worst. The only reason why I'm engaging in these conversations is boredom. Well, and smacking you on the head with your own delusions, every now and then. You're like the traffic accident people must slow down to have a look at, even though they know that there's nothing they can do. They know that they'd probably help the human cause more by simply moving on and letting the paramedics deal with the dying corpses. But still they stop to see the burning flesh.
I think that tells us something about me, unfortunately.
:pwned:
I said that the murder of Lennon was not justified IMHO. I talk about when you hold real grudges against someone.
So if two sound-minded individuals hold real grudges against one another, which deserves to die?
-
Judging from the way you rant on about guns, it was all Lennon's fault.
Know this: I consider your opinions utterly worthless at best, and actively harmful and dangerous at worst. The only reason why I'm engaging in these conversations is boredom. Well, and smacking you on the head with your own delusions, every now and then. You're like the traffic accident people must slow down to have a look at, even though they know that there's nothing they can do. They know that they'd probably help the human cause more by simply moving on and letting the paramedics deal with the dying corpses. But still they stop to see the burning flesh.
I think that tells us something about me, unfortunately.
:pwned:
I said that the murder of Lennon was not justified IMHO. I talk about when you hold real grudges against someone.
So if two sound-minded individuals hold real grudges against one another, which deserves to die?
They don't. One of them isn't a sound-minded person. The difficulty is to tell who is who.
-
So there can never be two sound-minded people holding real grudges against each other at any given time?
-
So there can never be two sound-minded people holding real grudges against each other at any given time?
A deadly grudge between two people with totally sound minds is extremely unlikely. If someone wants to kill anyone, he's either a moron himself (like Chapman) or the person he wants to kill is one (a rapist, a murderer, a power-abuser).
-
Meh, we are not America or a violent 3rd world country. Things are pretty safe here in Australia. Sure crime happens but nothing to write home about compared to some places. I don't feel the need to carry a gun or a knife and I don't get bothered by other people much. If you want to carry a gun or a knife, go right ahead, I really don't give a shit.
:eyebrows:
Yeah. I hear that Australia is actually less violent than New Zealand. WTF is wrong with those fucking kiwi's?? Do white kiwis enjoy getting their asses kicked by Maori guys???
-
So there can never be two sound-minded people holding real grudges against each other at any given time?
A deadly grudge between two people with totally sound minds is extremely unlikely. If someone wants to kill anyone, he's either a moron himself (like Chapman) or the person he wants to kill is one (a rapist, a murderer, a power-abuser).
Two soldiers fight on opposite sides. The father of one of them participated in a raid that killed the other's family (collateral damage; hey, it happens). The other captured the father and executed him for war crimes.
They both followed orders, and they both want to kill the other.
-
So there can never be two sound-minded people holding real grudges against each other at any given time?
A deadly grudge between two people with totally sound minds is extremely unlikely. If someone wants to kill anyone, he's either a moron himself (like Chapman) or the person he wants to kill is one (a rapist, a murderer, a power-abuser).
Two soldiers fight on opposite sides. The father of one of them participated in a raid that killed the other's family (collateral damage; hey, it happens). The other captured the father and executed him for war crimes.
They both followed orders, and they both want to kill the other.
Yes, it's likely in a war but not in peace time.
-
:pwned:
-
We weren't discussing wars specifically. In a civil society in peace time it's very unlikely.
-
:pwned:
-
Meh, we are not America or a violent 3rd world country. Things are pretty safe here in Australia. Sure crime happens but nothing to write home about compared to some places. I don't feel the need to carry a gun or a knife and I don't get bothered by other people much. If you want to carry a gun or a knife, go right ahead, I really don't give a shit.
:eyebrows:
Yeah. I hear that Australia is actually less violent than New Zealand. WTF is wrong with those fucking kiwi's?? Do white kiwis enjoy getting their asses kicked by Maori guys???
I have no idea, but the white man sure fucked over their culture like they were bitches.
-
So there can never be two sound-minded people holding real grudges against each other at any given time?
A deadly grudge between two people with totally sound minds is extremely unlikely. If someone wants to kill anyone, he's either a moron himself (like Chapman) or the person he wants to kill is one (a rapist, a murderer, a power-abuser).
But a grudge can be real without becoming deadly. That's where the sound minds come into play. 8)