Do You Own a Gun?
With all the firearms debate sparked by the Virginia Tech shooting, I was curious how many of us own a gun.
I don't own a gun. It doesn't have anything to do with being anti-gun. Until two years ago, I still had kids at home and didn't like the idea of having one under those circumstances.
I do, however, keep a penis with me at all times (oh, sorry, that was a dream I had.)
I own a crossbow. I don't think that counts as a gun.
I own several handguns (including a .22 and a 9mm), a .22 caliber rifle, an M1 carbine, and a Crosman air rifle. I rarely tell anyone that I have these because they are the only items that I own that are worth stealing*.
Just having these at home makes me more law-abiding, because I'm paranoid that if I get in trouble for anything someone will find a way to take away my guns. And yes, I know that that's not logical.
[FONT=Courier New]*Of course, I trust all the people who might read this on the internet, or I wouldn't post this.:eyebrow:[/FONT]
No I don't. Probably most of my neighbors do, and I don't mind that most people assume that I do.
7 handguns.
21 long guns.
I figured you would have more.
I figured you would have more.
I should probably get rid of some of them, there are a few that were just collectors and I got because they were available and going cheap at the time. I only shoot 4 or 5 with any regularity.
No guns, just my trusty left hook and a butcher knife.
My chinchillas protect me because they attack on command with the viciousness of that rabbit from monty python. :p
That wasn't a rabbit. That thing was a monster.
That wasn't a rabbit. That thing was a monster.
It was really a chinchilla disguised as a rabbit.
When I was growing up, we used sports equipment for protection. A guy broke into our house one night while we were asleep, and my dad knocked him out with a tennis racket. Another time, a kid broke in while I was home sick...I had my dad's softball bat in my hand, in case he got too close. But after a few words, he took off.
I'm going to get a class-3, full auto license.
I have not decided what my first will be, my family owns a few.
I know what I want, but it is really expensive, a Barrett M468 assault rifle. What will probably end-up happening is that I will convince them to buy it for the compound and get to take it to target practice whenever I want.
I miss being able to shoot the .50. It tears-up my hands now.
What I have now is a .45 semi-auto and .38 revolver. My rifles and shotgun are at the ranch. Company owned. I can get them when I want. I am going to get a Saiga urban setup 12 gage for my home when I can afford it, though.
Is an over the top folding stock legal again yet? Punk-ass idiots who have no idea what stops people from using guns. Criminals just cut-off wooden stocks, they don't buy special gear, especially tactical gear that makes their weapons easy to ID.:headshake
I don't have a gun.
I might get one when I own a house when I'm older but I won't have to worry about that for a few years.
Having lived most of my life in rural areas I have always had guns in the home. I own 9mm and 22 cal. handguns, 22 cal. and 33 lever action rifles and a 12 gauge pump shotgun. All my neighbors own guns. I don't know anyone who (other than in the military) has ever shot anyone. There is no real crime where I live.
I figured you would have more.
I have the rest.
Having lived most of my life in rural areas I have always had guns in the home. I own 9mm and 22 cal. handguns, 22 cal. and 33 lever action rifles and a 12 gauge pump shotgun. All my neighbors own guns. I don't know anyone who (other than in the military) has ever shot anyone. There is no real crime where I live.
My mother lives in a rural area, and I kind of wish she'd get a rifle or shotgun, or something. Not really because of any crime element (although there are unruly kids who raise hell in the area sometimes), but a couple of times, there's been gigantic, aggressive bulls that have gotten loose from nearby properties, and came a little too close to her house. Well, maybe not that close, but it made me nervous!
I have a few pistols(.22, .357mag, .40, .44mag , and a 7.62x25mm) , shot guns ( .410 ga , 20 ga , 12 ga ), Rifles ( .22 , .44mag ) , and LOTS of bb and pellet guns , I hunt when I can , shoot for practice and fun , and feel secure .
My mother lives in a rural area, and I kind of wish she'd get a rifle or shotgun, or something. Not really because of any crime element (although there are unruly kids who raise hell in the area sometimes), but a couple of times, there's been gigantic, aggressive bulls that have gotten loose from nearby properties, and came a little too close to her house. Well, maybe not that close, but it made me nervous!
A shotgun might not be the best choice for a rampaging bull. Well unless it was an autoloader and filled with slugs. She would need something a bit bigger and the strenght to deal with the recoil, not to mention being a good shot with a steady hand. Oh, and a scope.
7mm, .300 Win Mag, etc.
2-.22s 1-12 ga pump 1-9mm Tarus ss
Several.
An armed population can effectually resist not only crime but genocide as well. And really -- can you be overly proof against crime or genocide?:headshake
Them too, but for Pete's sake and yours, use enough gun. (Advice attributed to outdoors writer Robert Ruark)
I own a few, but I'm considering getting a lot more
Remember, my side-arm saved me from a charging, very large, wild boar. I also had a close-call with a, larger, wild sow... but I did not have to shoot her. However, I am VERY glad I had my gun with me. I have killed more than one rattle snake and cotton mouth that I could not have gotten away from (part of my job was crawling under the canopy of old growth orange trees (checking and repairing irrigation).
They close in behind you and you cannot see inside until your eyes adjust. You also cannot just run out, especially if the snake is in the tree over you or right in front/next of/to you.
Either your gun or machete are all you can use.
A sleeping, then, surprised pig is also a very bad deal.
Rats and large nests of bugs just suck.
One needs a large caliber, reliable, semi-automatic weapon.
Unless, you want to do the job without one? ... feel free.
I've shot IPSC,PPC and Bowling Pin matches.
I rely anymore on old 870 for self protection.
I like my 22, but anymore my Daisy Match air
pistol gets the most exercise.
The sound of an 870 racking in in the dark will
cause people to reconsider their actions.
That is why they are used in prisons.
Tactical buckshot is just standard velocity
buckshot. Cop issue, its just easier to control.
like I said, its my old bird gun.
I can cary it disassembled and with the
magazine retaining nut in my posession,
no one can use it without a visit to a gunsmith.
This makes it kid resistant.
A thief was shot in the night.
Whose hand was on the bow ?
Robb.
Ruger Redhawk .44, Glock 21, .45 ACP. The former lies dormant mostly. Hand cannons aren't my bag. The latter is much more comfortable for range practice and more forgiving to reload errors. Hey......dat brass don't cheap, I'm toll'in' you, sha.
Handguns: .45, 9mm, .22
Rifles: .22 and 7.62x39 (a wonderfully clunky SKS)
Do bb guns count? If they do, I have one. I've shot a .38 and .44 revolver.
My rifles are a .30-06, my favorite hunting & all around rifle, and some others and I have a sniper rifle, which I love. I say "mine" but they are company owned.
I can say, with all truth, with no bragging, that I am an outstanding sniper. Something I love and a grand hobby.
I have always hating hunting and never enjoyed killing. I have only done it for pay and, then, only when it was needed for population control. (though I can say that the meat is exquisite when cooked well and I can cook)
I own multiple guns, don't shoot as often as I used to but would like to get back into practice.
I do not specify makes or calibres due to security regulations at Chez Robinson.
They may or may not make the trip to Texas with me. Still to be decided.
I don't, though Mrs. Dallas has made noise about doing some kind of target shooting before. I'm tempted to buy her an air rifle of some sort for her birthday, but I don't know of anywhere that would be good to shoot it. (Our yard, being kind of postage-stamp sized, and irregularly shaped at that, doesn't seem like a good candidate.)
There's no reason to fuck around, SD, talk to people at a real shooty range.
IMO, everyone should fire a handgun at a piece of paper for a while to see what it's really like.
I don't, though Mrs. Dallas has made noise about doing some kind of target shooting before. I'm tempted to buy her an air rifle of some sort for her birthday, but I don't know of anywhere that would be good to shoot it. (Our yard, being kind of postage-stamp sized, and irregularly shaped at that, doesn't seem like a good candidate.)
An air rifle is not going to save your ass.
I would recommend one of two courses of action.
!. Don't buy a gun and accept the fact that if you are ever accosted you will become some sort of statistic. That is a perfectly acceptable position to assume, the majority of people do it on a regular and daily basis.
2. Buy a gun, train with it, shoot it to stay proficient, take a formal handgun self defense course, and never point it at anything you are not willing to kill.
Just curious--why?
For the best reason of all for having guns... to defend against a tyrannical government and to overthrow it when it becomes necessary.
I don't, though Mrs. Dallas has made noise about doing some kind of target shooting before.
I took SWMBO to the shooting range a while back. I told her that I didn't mind so much that she doesn't want one but that not knowing how to load/find the safety/aim/shoot a variety of handguns was not acceptable. A few people from DC were there enjoying some of the freedoms that citizens of Virginia take for granted.
Just curious--why?
Several reasons:
So, like Radar said, we can protect ourselves from our own government;
Just in case our government ever says we can't; and lastly,
If you were playing Dr. Evil and spinning the globe around deciding which country to invade, would
you pick the United States? :headshake
I took SWMBO
I love it!
We use that. :D
An under/over shotgun called Bess and a Stainless Browning 308.
For the best reason of all for having guns... to defend against a tyrannical government and to overthrow it when it becomes necessary.
No offense on this comment or anything, but does anyone really buy this, anymore? The citizens of
this country? Standing up against the government? People don't even protest, anymore, much less take action on anything. Tyranny would be introduced like boiling a frog and not so suddenly that would cause anyone to actually notice and take arms. Should the government ever get around to repealing the second amendment, we'll have lost so many other freedoms and be so brainwashed that we'll probably gladly hand them over when the knock comes at the door.
...!. Don't buy a gun and accept the fact that if you are ever accosted you will become some sort of statistic...
What statistic are you insinuating.
The "victim" statistic, probably.
An air rifle is not going to save your ass.
I said "target shooting," not self defense. If I thought a real gun would be beneficial for me to have, I'd have one already.
No offense on this comment or anything, but does anyone really buy this, anymore? The citizens of this country? Standing up against the government? People don't even protest, anymore, much less take action on anything. Tyranny would be introduced like boiling a frog and not so suddenly that would cause anyone to actually notice and take arms. Should the government ever get around to repealing the second amendment, we'll have lost so many other freedoms and be so brainwashed that we'll probably gladly hand them over when the knock comes at the door.
The day they come for my guns, they will get them bullets first. That's a fact. Another fact is that all individuals are born with the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and part of having a life is having the right to defend that life BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY.
We have the right to keep any number of any kind of guns we want without any government oversight or records. ALL gun control laws are unconstitutional.
I hear a lot of people saying things like, "I want to exercise my 2nd amendment right" or my "Constitutional right" to own a gun.
Our rights don't come from the Constitution or from government. We're born with rights and government at any level has no legitimate authority or power to violate them or even to limit them. I don't require any permission from the government to own any weapon I want with any kind of ammunition I want, without any serial numbers or records of purchase.
My right to own guns is not for others to decide how I will exercise, and is not up for debate. My right to own guns is not associated with being part of a militia. Also, the reasons I want to own a gun are completely irrelevant as long as I don't use them to violate the person, property, or rights of a non-consenting other who is not doing the same to me.
If I want to prop up a wobbly table leg with a gun, it's my right to do so. If I want to build a house with walls made entirely of loaded and working guns, I have the right to do so.
Everyone is born with rights but once you join a society you give up some rights to be accepted in the society.
How are we born with rights? Did a little certificate pop out with your little head?
ALL gun control laws are unconstitutional.
Our rights don't come from the Constitution or from government.
If our rights don't come from the constitution then gun controls laws (not having that right) are not unconstitutional, by that definition. Contradictory.
My right to own guns is not for others to decide how I will exercise, and is not up for debate.
Again, where do your rights come from unless you are god or satan? (OH GOD before everyone freaks I'm being tongue-in-cheek...don't get on me about god or satan, or even santa.)
Having rights or not having rights is a societal concept. They did not just appear at birth.
Argue the right to own guns or not within our society, because that's where we are.
In other words: HUH?
Right now they come from my, and other's, arsenal. As our founding father's wanted it.
Molon Labe
Right now they come from my, and other's, arsenal. As our founding father's wanted it.
Molon Labe
I like melons as much as the next guy.
Are we BORN with rights, or are they afforded us by our constitution? Who was born with rights first, our founding fathers, or the first quadrapedal to become bipedal?
It's like being born with original sin, only opposite. Get the pope.
Wow.
My right to own guns is not for others to decide how I will exercise, and is not up for debate.
Uh-huh, I'm not arguing that. What I was asking is if you really believe that firearms keep a tyrannical government at bay. Do you really think the population would rise up and overthrow the government should the need arise?
Honestly, I don't for one second. The small group that takes arms against the United States from within will be viewed as Waco-like extremists/terrorists, no matter what the reason for the revolt, and the complacent masses will back the ATF/FBI while watching the breaking news on CNN with little concern for anything more than the entertainment value of the spectacle.
What rights, besides the 2nd amendment, and how many do you think a tyrannical US government would have to take away in order to spark the masses to rebellion? I'll even go as far as to say it would be entirely possible to repeal the 2nd amendment, slowly, without violent reaction or much more than a strongly worded speech from the NRA. Handguns first, assault rifles next, then limit everyone to single shot bolt action rifles. Other governments have done it with ease. Run the proposals under the guise of safety, security, "terrorism", "for the children", and public benefit and the laws will pass.
People will continue to say that firearm ownership enables citizens to "overthrow the government when it becomes necessary" but it is little more than an outdated, fantastic dream that will never be lived no matter what atrocities the government imposes on the people. Fear of indefinite detentions and the force of organized armies in the present day always outweigh the fragmented will of armed individuals.
How are we born with rights? Did a little certificate pop out with your little head?
If our rights don't come from the constitution then gun controls laws (not having that right) are not unconstitutional, by that definition. Contradictory.
Again, where do your rights come from unless you are god or satan? (OH GOD before everyone freaks I'm being tongue-in-cheek...don't get on me about god or satan, or even santa.)
Having rights or not having rights is a societal concept. They did not just appear at birth.
Argue the right to own guns or not within our society, because that's where we are.
In other words: HUH?
Our rights come from natural law, which is part of the laws of nature. Where does gravity come from? It's a constant. It's a universal law of nature and is no more or less immutable than our rights. Rights are undeniable and self-evident and are with us from the moment of birth.
If you're unclear about natural law or rights, I suggest you read up on them because they are the foundation of our laws in America.
And yes, all gun control laws are unconstitutional, and a direct violation of our natural rights.
Everyone is born with rights but once you join a society you give up some rights to be accepted in the society.
False. Your rights end where another person's begin, but you do not "give up" your rights to be accepted in society. Society has no rights. Society is a collection of individuals. Individuals have no legitimate authority or power to deny another person to exercise their rights. They therefore can't legitimately grant this power to government.
The right to own a gun is within natural law, it's just like gravity? Since the beginning of time? I had no idea!
Gravity is pure physical science. Rights are a concept.
Uh-huh, I'm not arguing that. What I was asking is if you really believe that firearms keep a tyrannical government at bay. Do you really think the population would rise up and overthrow the government should the need arise?
Honestly, I don't for one second. The small group that takes arms against the United States from within will be viewed as Waco-like extremists/terrorists, no matter what the reason for the revolt, and the complacent masses will back the ATF/FBI while watching the breaking news on CNN with little concern for anything more than the entertainment value of the spectacle.
What rights, besides the 2nd amendment, and how many do you think a tyrannical US government would have to take away in order to spark the masses to rebellion? I'll even go as far as to say it would be entirely possible to repeal the 2nd amendment, slowly, without violent reaction or much more than a strongly worded speech from the NRA. Handguns first, assault rifles next, then limit everyone to single shot bolt action rifles. Other governments have done it with ease. Run the proposals under the guise of safety, security, "terrorism", "for the children", and public benefit and the laws will pass.
People will continue to say that firearm ownership enables citizens to "overthrow the government when it becomes necessary" but it is little more than an outdated, fantastic dream that will never be lived no matter what atrocities the government imposes on the people. Fear of indefinite detentions and the force of organized armies in the present day always outweigh the fragmented will of armed individuals.
If the 2nd amendment were entirely repealed, it would do nothing to negate our birthright to own any number of any type of guns and ammo we choose without any government oversight or permission.
And yes, if the government were openly disarming citizens and attacking them on a widespread basis, the people would take over the government. There are very few in the military who would fire on Americans even if ordered to do so.
The right to own a gun is within natural law, it's just like gravity? Since the beginning of time? I had no idea!
Well now you do.
Gravity is pure physical science. Rights are a concept.
Natural rights are no less immutable or deniable than gravity itself. They aren't a "concept" or an "idea". They are real, tangible, and undeniable.
As the founders said, they are self-evident.
I like melons as much as the next guy.
Are we BORN with rights, or are they afforded us by our constitution? Who was born with rights first, our founding fathers, or the first quadrapedal to become bipedal?
It's like being born with original sin, only opposite. Get the pope.
Wow.
Pull your skirt down, your snide ignorance is showing.
Molon Labe
When the Greeks came to Sparta they told the Spartans to lay down their arms...the Spartans replied "Molon Labe"...
"Come and take them"
Natural rights are no less immutable or deniable than gravity itself. They aren't a "concept" or an "idea". They are real, tangible, and undeniable.
As the founders said, they are self-evident.
Do I have the right to shoot and kill you?
False. Your rights end where another person's begin, but you do not "give up" your rights to be accepted in society. Society has no rights. Society is a collection of individuals. Individuals have no legitimate authority or power to deny another person to exercise their rights. They therefore can't legitimately grant this power to government.
What are you talking about?
Not like I had much choice since I was born here but I gave up my right to drink under the age of 21, use marijuana, have grenades, have nuclear weapons, kill someone, rape someone, hold whoever I want prisoner, own someone, and millions of other "rights" to live here without getting fined or going to jail.
Do you have a right to own a nuclear weapon? Why can't I own nuclear weapons? Because I decided to live in a society where nuclear weapons are outlawed therefore I gave up my right to own nuclear weapons to live in my society.
I have to agree 100% with Shawnee123 on this one. Rights are just like ethics, something that is made up by society. Also, you can not confuse philosophy (rights, ethics) with science (gravity, evolution) because one will disappear once humans are gone and the other will continue until heat death.
I own a Beretta automatic, but I keep it unloaded, and never shoot it.
Do I have the right to shoot and kill you?
Only if I am violating your right to life, liberty, and property. You only have the right to kill in your own defense.
What are you talking about?
Not like I had much choice since I was born here but I gave up my right to drink under the age of 21, use marijuana, have grenades, have nuclear weapons, kill someone, rape someone, hold whoever I want prisoner, own someone, and millions of other "rights" to live here without getting fined or going to jail.
Do you have a right to own a nuclear weapon? Why can't I own nuclear weapons? Because I decided to live in a society where nuclear weapons are outlawed therefore I gave up my right to own nuclear weapons to live in my society.
I have to agree 100% with Shawnee123 on this one. Rights are just like ethics, something that is made up by society. Also, you can not confuse philosophy (rights, ethics) with science (gravity, evolution) because one will disappear once humans are gone and the other will continue until heat death.
What are YOU talking about? Yes, You do have the right to smoke marijuana. You also have the right to drink alcohol when you've reached the age of majority (18), and you have the right own grenades, and even nukes as long as you don't use them to infringe on the rights of others and you can ensure that your neighbors are not harmed by radiation caused by them.
All laws against any of these things is a violation of our rights and is a violation of the U.S. Constitution and natural law. You haven't given up your right to own nukes. You may choose not to exercise them, and they you may have your rights violated by being prevented from owning them by force, but this does not mean you don't have the right or that you've given up the right.
Your rights can't be bought, sold, taken, given, or voted away. If every person in the world voted for gravity to go away, we'd still have gravity tomorrow, and the same is true of our rights.
You do not have the right to rape, kill, imprison, or own people because this violates their rights. Your rights end where another person's begin. They don't come from government and government has no legitimate authority to limit our rights. This means you couldn't have given up a right or even chosen not to exercise it because you never had such a right.
Only if I am violating your right to life, liberty, and property. You only have the right to kill in your own defense.
Property? Own defense? Are you saying that we were born with the right to have "stuff" and kill to keep our "stuff"?
... You also have the right to drink alcohol when you've reached the age of majority (18)...
Why not before 18? Who determines the age of majority?
We own ourselves. Our property is an extension of ourselves. It is the fruits of our labor. Our right to defend ourselves extends to our property as well. And yes, if someone tries to take our property by force, we have the right to use any level of force necessary to stop them up to and including deadly force. For instance, if government agents tried to steal my house, I'd be within my rights to kill them if they refused to go away.
...You do not have the right to rape, kill, imprison, or own people because this violates their rights. Your rights end where another person's begin. They don't come from government and government has no legitimate authority to limit our rights. This means you couldn't have given up a right or even chosen not to exercise it because you never had such a right.
Do I have the right to have sex with animals? To commit suicide? Is running a stop sign infringing on others' rights, if no one else is at the intersection?
Why not before 18? Who determines the age of majority?
This is a gray area. In some cultures the age of majority (consent) is recognized as 13, or 16, etc. but in America, and England before that, for hundreds and hundreds of years, it's been generally accepted to be 18.
Children have rights, but their parents are their stewards and get to make all decisions over their life (unless those decisions endanger their children or otherwise violate their rights) until they reach the age of majority in their particular culture. I suppose if you move out when you're 16 and are paying your own bills, you are an adult and can consume what you please.
No person or group of people, regardless of their number, has any legitimate authority to tell another person what they will or won't do with their own body, what they will or won't consume (assuming what they are consuming was obtained honestly), what medical procedures they will have, which consenting adults they will or won't have sex with, etc.
We own ourselves. Our property is an extension of ourselves. It is the fruits of our labor. Our right to defend ourselves extends to our property as well. And yes, if someone tries to take our property by force, we have the right to use any level of force necessary to stop them up to and including deadly force. For instance, if government agents tried to steal my house, I'd be within my rights to kill them if they refused to go away.
What if they just want to steal your gum? Hubba Bubba?
Do I have the right to have sex with animals? To commit suicide? Is running a stop sign infringing on others' rights, if no one else is at the intersection?
Yes, you have the right to have sex with animals, assuming you own the animals in question. And yes, since you own yourself and your life, you have every right to end it if you choose. You also have the right to prostitute yourself, to gamble, to marry your cousin (even if they are the same gender), etc.
You have the right to do
ANYTHING you want as long as your actions do not infringe on the person, property, or rights of non-consenting others.
You do not have the right to run a stop sign because you could endanger others, even if you don't see them and believe an intersection is empty.
What if they just want to steal your gum? Hubba Bubba?
My guess is I could find a level of force less than deadly force that would make them give up the gum, or I could use the force of my servants (government) to handle it for me.
How are we born with rights? Did a little certificate pop out with your little head?
We hold these truths to be self-evident,
that all men are created equal,
that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,
that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men,
deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,...
Originally Posted by Thom Jefferson
We hold these truths to be self-evident,
that all men are created equal,
that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,
that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men,
deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,...
Tom, you're entitled to your own opinion. The guy down the block feels differently, though. I like the "pursuit of happiness" concept - run with that a little.
The basis of all the laws in America is the recognition (not the creation) that we are born with unalienable rights. Our rights don't come from "society" or from "government" and most certainly aren't a concept or an opinion. They are a reality and are tangible.
Just as gravity existed before Newton "discovered" it, so did our rights before men talked about them or recognized them.
Amendment 1 (1st for a reason)
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
In Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli, an agreement signed between the United States and the Muslim region of North Africa in 1797 after negotiations concluded by George Washington (the document, which was approved by the Senate in accordance with Constitutional law, and then signed by John Adams), it states flatly, "The Government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." signed by John Adams
"This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it!" John Adams
The basis of all the laws in America is the recognition (not the creation) that we are born with unalienable rights. Our rights don't come from "society" or from "government" and most certainly aren't a concept or an opinion. They are a reality and are tangible.
Just as gravity existed before Newton "discovered" it, so did our rights before men talked about them or recognized them.
"among these are..."
What, specifically, are these rights? If they are tangible, they can be listed, right? Whether you want to say "hold these truths to be self-evident" or "recognition", this is still denotes subjectivity - it is an opinion, since other people do not have the same view.
I figured you would have more.
I have the rest.
Except for the ones that I have.
edit: err. Uh ... "No guns here, Mr. Tepper."
There's no reason to fuck around, SD, talk to people at a real shooty range.
IMO, everyone should fire a handgun at a piece of paper for a while to see what it's really like.
You know, we could consider a GTG ...
Anybody belong to an outdoor range with liberal guest privileges?
I have a private family range and we have melons on the ranch.
You're just a touch far from Philadelphia, and the regulations for travelling with firearms by air are complex to the point that folks from the airlines don't typically know or follow them properly, from what I've heard from other's personal experience.
You're just a touch far from Philadelphia, and the regulations for travelling with firearms by air are complex to the point that folks from the airlines don't typically know or follow them properly, from what I've heard from other's personal experience.
I just tell em', hand it to them packaged properly, pick it up at my location. Never had an issue.
Radar, you are doing a fine job in this thread handling some pretty mystifying questions and addressing some baffling misconceptions.
Radar, you are doing a fine job in this thread handling some pretty mystifying questions and addressing some baffling misconceptions.
Seconded.
"among these are..."
What, specifically, are these rights? If they are tangible, they can be listed, right? Whether you want to say "hold these truths to be self-evident" or "recognition", this is still denotes subjectivity - it is an opinion, since other people do not have the same view.
There are too many to list. Among them are chewing bubblegum, riding a pogo stick, and posting ridiculous claims that we aren't born with rights on websites.
The list is much shorter to say what are rights are not than what they are. Our rights aren't to be defined or limited by governments.
In short, we have the right to do
ANYTHING we want as long as our actions don't physically harm or endanger the person, property, or rights of non-consenting others. In other words, the only limitations on our rights are the equal rights of others.
I don't know what country you are from, but here in America, the fact that we have human rights is axiomatic. It's a given. It is recognized not only in America, but throughout the vast majority of the world.
All governments violate human rights to some degree including our own on an ever increasing basis, but nearly all of them also recognize the fact that humans are born with rights.
What are you talking about?
Not like I had much choice since I was born here but I gave up my right to drink under the age of 21, use marijuana, have grenades, have nuclear weapons, kill someone, rape someone, hold whoever I want prisoner, own someone, and millions of other "rights" to live here without getting fined or going to jail.
Do you have a right to own a nuclear weapon? Why can't I own nuclear weapons? Because I decided to live in a society where nuclear weapons are outlawed therefore I gave up my right to own nuclear weapons to live in my society.
I have to agree 100% with Shawnee123 on this one. Rights are just like ethics, something that is made up by society. Also, you can not confuse philosophy (rights, ethics) with science (gravity, evolution) because one will disappear once humans are gone and the other will continue until heat death.
You gave up nothing....they didn't ask you to give up anything. Everything you can't do was a right taken away from you.
Rights are not created by society, they are taken away by society.
Is there a law that say you have the right to go to the Dairy Queen and get brain freeze? No, laws only take rights away, not give them.
When a deer in the woods wakes up in the morning does it contemplate whether it can go here or there. No, it has the right to go where ever it wants until someone takes part of that right away by putting up a fence or something.
It's the same for humans. When you wake up in the morning you can do anything you want unless someone has taken the right to do that away.
Your rights are not like ethics, they are not analyzed and agreed upon. Laws are like ethics. Rights are natural and yours until they are taken away by society with it's laws/ethics.
I just tell em', hand it to them packaged properly, pick it up at my location. Never had an issue.
When was the last time you flew a commercial airline with a firearm?
Radar, you are doing a fine job in this thread handling some pretty mystifying questions and addressing some baffling misconceptions.
Fourthed, or so -- I came in late.
Hawkeye's understanding of this is, well, immature. Time'll cure that.
The idea of rights are created by humans. Without humans there would be no idea of rights just like there would be no such thing as freedom. Both are man-made concepts that mean nothing in the bigger picture. Why? Because natural rights and freedom are abstract concepts.
If you take away gravity, the entire universe would fall apart. If take way natural rights, nothing will change except in the human world.
Radar, a lot of things will cross the gray zone because almost everything will affect someone else. Do I have the right to use electricity because it creates pollution that will kill people with respitory problems? Do I have the right to make as much money as possible even though that may keep other people in poverty and they may die because of that? Do animals have natural rights since we are all animals and we are no more evolved then anything else, but just took a different path?
Humans didn't invent natural rights, they only described them. The cave men with no written language and limited ability to convey complex thought, still had rights, even though they couldn't conceptualize them.
When was the last time you flew a commercial airline with a firearm?
Been quite a while.
Radar, you are doing a fine job in this thread handling some pretty mystifying questions and addressing some baffling misconceptions.
I agree. While I don't necessarily agree with everything you've said, you've presented rational points of view without any value judgements or UG/merc-type slur...
There are too many to list. Among them are chewing bubblegum, riding a pogo stick, and posting [COLOR="Red"]ridiculous[/COLOR] claims that we aren't born with rights on websites.
never mind...
Now why did you have to go there? Like I said, I don't agree with you, but didn't say anything was ridiculous. :mad:
The list is much shorter to say what are rights are not than what they are. Our rights aren't to be defined or limited by governments.
In short, we have the right to do ANYTHING we want as long as our actions don't physically harm or endanger the person, property, or rights of non-consenting others. In other words, the only limitations on our rights are the equal rights of others.
I don't know what country you are from, but here in America, the fact that we have human rights is axiomatic. It's a given. It is recognized not only in America, but throughout the vast majority of the world.
All governments violate human rights to some degree including our own on an ever increasing basis, but nearly all of them also recognize the fact that humans are born with rights.
I'm from The USA. Born and bred.
Some of us believe in human rights - plenty of Americans don't.
I don't think rights "exist" as though they would be there even if no humans existed - they are not stand-alone. They are societal conventions, agreed upon by civilizations. The deer that wakes up doesn't think about what it is allowed to do any more than the wolf does. But by your definition, the wolf infringes on the rights of the deer when it eats the deer. If these rights were "pre-existing", they would supercede "might makes right" wouldn't they?
Where do laws come into your philosophy? If someone tries to steal your car, you feel entitled to kill the person. What about due process? The legal system? Is each person their own judge, jury, and executioner, interpreting their own set of "unwritten laws"? This would make for an anxiety-filled society, where no one knows exactly how to behave, because one person's interpretation of "unwritten laws" will be different than another person's, and breaking those "unwritten laws" could get you killed.
The idea of rights are created by humans. Without humans there would be no idea of rights just like there would be no such thing as freedom. Both are man-made concepts that mean nothing in the bigger picture. Why? Because natural rights and freedom are abstract concepts.
If you take away gravity, the entire universe would fall apart. If take way natural rights, nothing will change except in the human world.
Radar, a lot of things will cross the gray zone because almost everything will affect someone else. Do I have the right to use electricity because it creates pollution that will kill people with respitory problems? Do I have the right to make as much money as possible even though that may keep other people in poverty and they may die because of that? Do animals have natural rights since we are all animals and we are no more evolved then anything else, but just took a different path?
1. Humans didn't invent rights. They always existed, and humans merely discovered them in much the same way they discovered gravity. Rights are not "abstract concepts" or an idea. They are a tangible reality.
2. The human world is the world we live in. One could easily argue that without humans the universe would cease to exist entirely. It's the old tree falling with nobody around to hear it thing. If nobody existed with the cognitive ability to comprehend the universe, would it even exist? Without any humans alive on earth, there would still be human rights. There just wouldn't be any humans to exercise them.
3. I didn't say we can't do things that "effect" other people, I said we can't do things that violate the person, property, or rights of non-consenting others.
4. Creating electricity does not necessarily create pollution or respiratory problems in others. You don't have the right to pollute because it is a trespass onto the property of others.
5. Your making of wealth does nothing to keep others poor or cause them to die.
6. Humans alone have natural human rights. We are above all other creatures due to our higher level of sentience, and our ability to reason and to think outside of ourselves.
I agree. While I don't necessarily agree with everything you've said, you've presented rational points of view without any value judgements or UG/merc-type slur...
never mind...
Now why did you have to go there? Like I said, I don't agree with you, but didn't say anything was ridiculous. :mad:
I'm from The USA. Born and bred. Some of us believe in human rights - plenty of Americans don't.
I don't think rights "exist" as though they would be there even if no humans existed - they are not stand-alone. They are societal conventions, agreed upon by civilizations. The deer that wakes up doesn't think about what it is allowed to do any more than the wolf does. But by your definition, the wolf infringes on the rights of the deer when it eats the deer. If these rights were "pre-existing", they would supercede "might makes right" wouldn't they?
Where do laws come into your philosophy? If someone tries to steal your car, you feel entitled to kill the person. What about due process? The legal system? Is each person their own judge, jury, and executioner, interpreting their own set of "unwritten laws"? This would make for an anxiety-filled society, where no one knows exactly how to behave, because one person's interpretation of "unwritten laws" will be different than another person's, and breaking those "unwritten laws" could get you killed.
Actually no. There are no people in America that don't believe in rights, and that includes you. If I tried to kill you, you'd say that you have the right to live. Without rights, you would have no right to complain if I did try to kill you anymore than you would complain about another natural occurance like the rain.
You complain about an "anxiety-filled society" without written laws, but the truth is without rights we'd have no laws and I could enslave you, rape you, rob you, and murder you without fear of retaliation because you have no right to your life, your person, or your possessions. Most would have less anxiety if they knew the only law was that no person could violate the person, property, or rights of others than to live in the "society" where rights aren't recognized that you've described.
Society has no rights. Only individuals do, and they got these rights the moment they were born. Rights don't come from societal conventions or agreements. Rights can't be bought, sold, traded, taken, or given away.
Actually no. There are no people in America that don't believe in rights, and that includes you. If I tried to kill you, you'd say that you have the right to live.
Actually, yes. If you tried to kill me, your actions say that you don't believe in those rights.
You would be the one who doesn't believe.
Without rights, you would have no right to complain if I did try to kill you anymore than you would complain about another natural occurance like the rain.
I'm not saying there are no rights, I'm saying rights are rules that a society agrees to.
You complain about an "anxiety-filled society" without written laws, but the truth is without rights we'd have no laws and I could enslave you, rape you, rob you, and murder you without fear of retaliation because you have no right to your life, your person, or your possessions.
Wait, didn't you say that laws only limit rights? Now you're saying rights are the basis of laws? You're confusing me. Do laws protect my rights, or limit my rights?
Uncertainty causes anxiety. Without precisely understood rules, people will be uncertain, and therefore anxious.
Most would have less anxiety if they knew the only law was that no person could violate the person, property, or rights of others than to live in the "society" where rights aren't recognized that you've described.
But what do you mean by "violate"? That's where trouble begins. I might feel that my rights are being violated if you yell obscenities at me from your yard - if my "stuff" is an extesion of my "person", then my reputation, self-esteem, and pride are an even closer extension of my person. Can I kill someone for yelling, since my interpretation is that they are "stealing" my pride?
... to live in the "society" where rights aren't recognized that you've described.
I didn't say rights aren't recognized.
Society has no rights. Only individuals do, and they got these rights the moment they were born. Rights don't come from societal conventions or agreements. Rights can't be bought, sold, traded, taken, or given away.
I disagree. What you're describing sounds like Original Sin to me. Some kind of mystical aura that surrounds us. It's not. We're born with a biological imperitive for survival of our species. We would kill, rape, steal, do whatever it takes to ensure the continuation of our species, if left to ourselves. It's only through interaction with other civilized people that we form conventions that serve to improve the chances of species survival better than we could individually. These convention are rights, morals, mores, laws, courtesies, - whatever you want to call them.
I've broken it down to a level even a child can understand, but in your case, I'll break it down further. You own yourself. Because you own your mind, you have the right to think freely. Because you own your voice, you have the right to express yourself freely. Because you own your labor, you also own the fruits of your labor. You own yourself and no other person or group of people calling themselves "government" or "society" has any claim to you or your labor. Nor do they have any legitimate authority to prevent you from doing anything you want as long as your actions do not PHYSICALLY harm, endanger, or violate the person, property, or rights of non-consenting others. A violation of a right would be preventing another person from exercising their rights.
Our rights do not include going through life without being offended or getting your feelings hurt. Nobody can steal your pride. Nobody else controls your pride or self-esteem but yourself.
I haven't described an "aura" or mysticism. I've described the undeniable, factual, and palpable human rights that we are born with and which have nothing to do whatsoever with societal rules or conventions.
You are free to join the ranks of the most heinous sociopaths of history by trying to deny the reality that human rights exist, but these claims merit the same consideration as denying existence of gravity.
We had rights before we had "society".
I've broken it down to a level even a child can understand, but in your case, I'll break it down further.
Nice. If everyone had your negotiation skills, I'd say 'guns for everyone!'
We had rights before we had "society".
Society in your definition. The first two people who looked at each other had a society of sorts. From that society rose the knowledge "hey if I try to kill and eat him he might kill and eat me. Perhaps we should learn to work together and not go there."
I've broken it down to a level even a child can understand, but in your case, I'll break it down further.....
I have been nothing but respectful to you in this thread. I understand what you've said, I just think you're WRONG. I don't think you're stupid, just WRONG. Oh, you're an asshole, too.
You are the one claiming that society makes rules and creates or defines a "concept" of rights. By YOUR definition, society didn't exist until it could make and enforce such rules. This requires some form of government.
If you and I were on an island together, you'd have absolutely no authority to make rules about how I do things, what medicines I take, etc. unless I physically harmed or endangered you. Then you would be justified in using defensive force against me.
Because you don't have any right to tell me whom I may marry, what foods or medicines I may take, etc., neither do 10 of you or 10 million of you or 10 billion of you calling yourself "society" or "government".
I have been nothing but respectful to you in this thread. I understand what you've said, I just think you're WRONG. I don't think you're stupid, just WRONG. Oh, you're an asshole, too.
Luckily I've got 99.999999999% of the population of the planet earth who agree with me and who know you are WRONG.
As far as your opinion of me goes, I fully support your RIGHT to have that opinion and to express it freely. You're a member of a not so exclusive club of people who share that opinion. It's a good thing my self-respect has nothing to do with your opinion.
Luckily I've got 99.999999999% of the population of the planet earth who agree with me and who know you are WRONG.
As far as your opinion of me goes, I fully support your RIGHT to have that opinion and to express it freely. You're a member of a not so exclusive club of people who share that opinion. It's a good thing my self-respect has nothing to do with your opinion.
Maybe this is why you lost the election.
It was either that or the fact that I had less money and was running in a district that hasn't elected a white person in the last 20+ years and which votes 90% with the Democratic Party against a well-known incumbent.
My guess is the latter. Even with all the odds stacked against me, I got a very respectable 8% of the vote.
How many people have voted for you again?
Don't mind him, radar. Spexxvet was picked last for kickball.
Don't mind him, radar. Spexxvet was picked last for kickball.
Now why would you have to put in your two cents on his behalf. I was debating respectfully - where were you when he started belittling me? Do you support people just because they think like you, even when they act like assholes? Oh yeah, as a Christian conservative repubican, I guess you do.
Because the M.O around here has become to treat anyone who doesn't agree with you like an uneducated piece of shit. Hey, it's just like a job!
I expected more from Wolf, too.
Disappointing, to say the least.
Radar happens to say a lot of crazy things that I don't come even close to agreeing with, but he's right on with this stuff.
And by the way ... I'm neither Christian nor a Republican.
Radar happens to say a lot of crazy things that I don't come even close to agreeing with, but he's right on with this stuff.
...
And that's cause to insult me?
Yep, nice insults from all. Thanks Rkz...though everyone thinks you're an ass I make a concerted effort to listen to you and give a shit.
I'm done with this place. You're not the nice people I once thought. Have a great time. Luckily I have a right to think you suck.
Buby cunt-whore-fuck (look I fit in, I fit in!)
Radar happens to say a lot of crazy things that I don't come even close to agreeing with, but he's right on with this stuff.
And by the way ... I'm neither Christian nor a Republican.
I am also neither of those things
I have been nothing but respectful to you in this thread. I understand what you've said, I just think you're WRONG. I don't think you're stupid, just WRONG. Oh, you're an asshole, too.
So that and taunting him about the election results* was reasoned argument? I must have missed something, somewhere.
* I applaud Radar's courage in running with the deck stacked against him to that extent.
Buby cunt-whore-fuck (look I fit in, I fit in!)
Perhaps not. If you did, you would realize that BuBy is zip-ese for "On your way out, don't let the door hit you where the Good Lord split you."
No one can be right on this argument because it is opinion. I can say we don't have free will and bring a damn good argument supporting my position and you could say we do have free will and bring a damn good argument supporting your position and how would we determine who is right if you can't prove it (you can not prove a having or lacking free will by the way).
1. Humans didn't invent rights. They always existed, and humans merely discovered them in much the same way they discovered gravity. Rights are not "abstract concepts" or an idea. They are a tangible reality.
Then how can you be born without human rights? If it is a tangible reality that means you could be born without it, then how can you be born without human rights?
2. The human world is the world we live in. One could easily argue that without humans the universe would cease to exist entirely. It's the old tree falling with nobody around to hear it thing. If nobody existed with the cognitive ability to comprehend the universe, would it even exist? Without any humans alive on earth, there would still be human rights. There just wouldn't be any humans to exercise them.
This could be true, but it is a very human self-centered idea that seems to be disproven everywhere in the universe saying that humans aren't anything special in the eyes of the universe.
3. I didn't say we can't do things that "effect" other people, I said we can't do things that violate the person, property, or rights of non-consenting others.
If you "effect" someone negatively, you violate someone’s rights as a person.
6. Humans alone have natural human rights. We are above all other creatures due to our higher level of sentience, and our ability to reason and to think outside of ourselves.
So when did humans start to have human rights? Was there suddenly a time when we had these rights or what?
Our rights do not include going through life without being offended or getting your feelings hurt. Nobody can steal your pride. Nobody else controls your pride or self-esteem but yourself.
How do you know? What makes you think that
your version of human rights are the right one?
I've broken it down to a level even a child can understand, but in your case, I'll break it down further.
We understand what you are saying and actually agree more than you think we do but we just disagree on a few aspects. Well at least I do.
You are free to join the ranks of the most heinous sociopaths of history by trying to deny the reality that human rights exist, but these claims merit the same consideration as denying existence of gravity.
Once you join a society then you do have rights and I'm sure no one here denies that it is just that without a society, you don't have any rights because society invented that concept so people could live peacefully with each other.
Zip-ese
Well !! I didn't know that a language had been named after me ,
This could be fun !!!
Perhaps not. If you did, you would realize that BuBy is zip-ese for "On your way out, don't let the door hit you where the Good Lord split you."
Yeah, ugly bitch...I got that. You really did turn out to be the cunt everyone said you are...I would think if you look like that you would try to be a nicer person. You know, so you had SOMETHING going for you.
buby bubitch
Zip-ese
Well !! I didn't know that a language had been named after me ,
This could be fun !!!
Complete with the total inability to spell. Just like your hick people.
Yeah, ugly bitch...I got that. You really did turn out to be the cunt everyone said you are...I would think if you look like that you would try to be a nicer person. You know, so you had SOMETHING going for you.
buby bubitch
Is that better or worse than being an asshole? Let me know so I can figure out where I stand. :D
Then how can you be born without human rights? If it is a tangible reality that means you could be born without it, then how can you be born without human rights?
Being a tangible reality does not mean you can be born without them. How can you be born into a planet without gravity? You can't. The same is true of rights. You are born with them and can't be born without them.
This could be true, but it is a very human self-centered idea that seems to be disproven everywhere in the universe saying that humans aren't anything special in the eyes of the universe.
Disproven? by whom? when did this happen? As far as I know we've had no non-humans do tests in other parts of the universe to see if it exists without humans to perceive it. Do you know a Martian?
If you "effect" someone negatively, you violate someone’s rights as a person.
That's entirely false. I can sing a tune that you are displeased with and effected by, but I have not violated your rights by singing it. You do not have the right to not be offended, but I do have the right to express myself freely.
So when did humans start to have human rights?
The moment the first human was born.
Was there suddenly a time when we had these rights or what?
The natural rights I've described have existed for as gravity has existed.
How do you know? What makes you think that your version of human rights are the right one?
I don't have a "version" of human rights. Nor do you. Nor does anyone. Human rights are there even if you choose not to recognize them as part of the laws of nature. They exist even if you are prevented from exercising them. All humans have the same rights despite any personal beliefs they may or may not have.
Once you join a society then you do have rights and I'm sure no one here denies that it is just that without a society you don't have any rights because society invented that concept so people could live peacefully with each other.
Society has not invented anything; individuals have. Rights are not an invention. They are a law of nature and are as real as any law of physics. Without a society you have all rights. With a society you have all rights. Your rights are the same regardless of whether or not you are living around others and regardless of what the laws are in a particular government where you may live.
I would ask the persistent Mr. Hawkeye: What exactly is your question, sir. Exactly what is your question?
no, but beest has two paintball guns, I'm guessing that doesn't count? (Still kept well out of reach of sproglets, though -a paintball in the eye is not amusing.)
I can't imagine anyone I know owning a gun, even though i live in America. Mind you, this is hippy town and almost everyone I know has children.
I would ask the persistent Mr. Hawkeye: What exactly is your question, sir. Exactly what is your question?
Edit - Look at the end of my next post.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zippyt View Post
Zip-ese
Well !! I didn't know that a language had been named after me ,
This could be fun !!!
Complete with the total inability to spell. Just like your hick people.
Well Nanny boo boo to you too FuckTard !!!!
Being a tangible reality does not mean you can be born without them. How can you be born into a planet without gravity? You can't. The same is true of rights. You are born with them and can't be born without them.
You can go to into deep space where gravity is at a minimum and attempt to give birth but you can never give birth to someone without human’s rights. One is a physical concept because you can take gravity away and one is a abstract philosophical concept because you can not physically take it away.
Disproven? by whom? when did this happen? As far as I know we've had no non-humans do tests in other parts of the universe to see if it exists without humans to perceive it. Do you know a Martian?
I said it "seems to be disproven". If all humans die tomorrow, everything the world tells us is that it will move on with or without us.
That's entirely false. I can sing a tune that you are displeased with and effected by, but I have not violated your rights by singing it. You do not have the right to not be offended, but I do have the right to express myself freely.
I do not have a right to be offended? If you are singing a tune that displeases me, that takes away my ability to be happy. You do have a right to express yourself and I have a right to be happy, when these two conflict we have to come up with a compromise.
The moment the first human was born.
There was never a first human because humans are constantly evolving. There is never an exact point where a child becomes an adult. We place an age on it but the difference between the two is no different then any instant when someone is a child or an adult.
The natural rights I've described have existed for as gravity has existed.
I thought they came when the first human was born?
I don't have a "version" of human rights. Nor do you. Nor does anyone. Human rights are there even if you choose not to recognize them as part of the laws of nature. They exist even if you are prevented from exercising them. All humans have the same rights despite any personal beliefs they may or may not have.
How do we know what natural rights are? There is nothing that says what natural rights are. They are all made by individuals and there view of the world around them.
Society has not invented anything; individuals have. Rights are not an invention. They are a law of nature and are as real as any law of physics. Without a society you have all rights. With a society you have all rights. Your rights are the same regardless of whether or not you are living around others and regardless of what the laws are in a particular government where you may live.
You have to compromise your rights when you live with other people because they will conflict.
I guess I do have a philosphical question Beestie.
If you have something that can not be taken away from you does it really exist or is it just an illusion?
(Just for the record, I should have said you have to compromise your rights, or illusion of rights, when you live in a society. You technically still have them, but you are not allowed to use them.)
You can go to into deep space where gravity is at a minimum and attempt to give birth but you can never give birth to someone without human’s rights. One is a physical concept because you can take gravity away and one is a abstract philosophical concept because you can not physically take it away.
Rights are as real, tangible, physical, and undeniable as gravity. You can go in the deepest recesses of space and gravity still exists, though its strength is diminished. Your rights exist even within the most fascist and brutal nations, they are being violated and you are prevented from exercising them, but they still exist. You can not physically take away gravity, and you can not physically take away rights.
I said it "seems to be disproven". If all humans die tomorrow, everything the world tells us is that it will move on with or without us.
That is an opinion. I'm talking about facts. Rights exist as a matter of fact, not opinion.
I do not have a right to be offended? If you are singing a tune that displeases me, that takes away my ability to be happy. You do have a right to express yourself and I have a right to be happy, when these two conflict we have to come up with a compromise.
You have the right to
PURSUE happiness. You are not guaranteed happiness. If you dislike the tune I'm singing, you are free to go somewhere that makes you happier, or to wear earplugs. My singing has nothing to do with your ability to pursue happiness.
There was never a first human because humans are constantly evolving. There is never an exact point where a child becomes an adult. We place an age on it but the difference between the two is no different then any instant when someone is a child or an adult.
There was a first human and there will be a last human too. The age at which someone becomes an adult is fluid. I know plenty of 60 year olds who are not adults, and 15 year olds who are.
I thought they came when the first human was born?
No, human rights didn't
appear when the first human was born. They have existed for all time and the first human was imbued with them at birth.
How do we know what natural rights are? There is nothing that says what natural rights are. They are all made by individuals and there view of the world around them.
The beauty of natural rights is they don't have to be enumerated or codified. We have the right to do
ANYTHING as long as our actions do not prevent another person from exercising their rights, and do not physically harm or endanger that person or their property.
You have to compromise your rights when you live with other people because they will conflict.
I don't argue this. I've always maintained that one persons rights end where another's begin. But you seem to not only have a hard time comprehending the meaning of rights, but you also have a hard time distinguishing them from privileges or desires. My right to sing a song you don't like supersedes your desire not to hear it. The most minor of my rights is more important than your most fervent desire.
If you have something that can not be taken away from you does it really exist or is it just an illusion?
If you love someone, does it exist? Can someone take from you the love you have for your mother? Is the love you have for your mother merely an illusion?
(Just for the record, I should have said you have to compromise your rights, or illusion of rights, when you live in a society. You technically still have them, but you are not allowed to use them.)
There is no illusion of rights. There are rights and there are privileges and they are complete opposites. When you live in a "society" you don't have to give up your rights or even compromise them anymore than just respecting the equal rights of others. Most of the time there are those in a society who want to impose their desire onto others and prevent them from exercising their rights through force, but they still have the rights.
There was a first human and there will be a last human too.
Are you talking about Adam, or something more akin to Lucy?
Because in the latter case, no matter how you define "human", the first one would in all likelihood be more similar to its "nonhuman" parents than to you. Do natural rights apply to those parents?
Complete with the total inability to spell. Just like your hick people.
I just caught up with this shit. And to think I once saw you as a SMART AND BRIGHT lady. oh well And by the fucking way Zip and I are running neck and neck on the spelling. Thank you very flappin much.
So that and taunting him about the election results* was reasoned argument? I must have missed something, somewhere.
* I applaud Radar's courage in running with the deck stacked against him to that extent.
That was after I turned the other cheek twice - that's all he gets. I know: you conservatives need teamwork to even come close to winning an argument against one liberal. And still, you lose.
Radar, you can think that you are born with all the rights you want - if your neighbor doesn't buy into the same societal convention, he will kill you and take your stuff and your women. So good luck with that.
if your neighbor doesn't buy into the same societal convention, he will kill you and take your stuff and your women. So good luck with that.
Thus the need for a gun to defend your self and your stuff .
Right on, Buster.
Does anyone else completely tune people out once they start throwing around "you conservatives" or "you liberals" as an argument?
Are you talking about Adam, or something more akin to Lucy?
Because in the latter case, no matter how you define "human", the first one would in all likelihood be more similar to its "nonhuman" parents than to you. Do natural rights apply to those parents?
I am not a Christian and don't believe in any bible stories. I was talking about whatever person was the first person. The first person to evolve from apes to be an actual person as we are now, and not a half-ape/half-man hybrid.
That was after I turned the other cheek twice - that's all he gets. I know: you conservatives need teamwork to even come close to winning an argument against one liberal. And still, you lose.
I'm not a conservative by any stretch of the rational mind and you certainly haven't won any argument in this thread. Or are you talking about some other discussion where you had a better position and weren't trying to deny reality?
Radar, you can think that you are born with all the rights you want - if your neighbor doesn't buy into the same societal convention, he will kill you and take your stuff and your women. So good luck with that.
If he tries he will meet the same fate he planned for me but in my case, I'll be using defensive force and exercising my rights, while he'll be using offensive force while trying to violate them. My position is clear, concise, and has no flaws or ambiguity. This is because, unlike yours, it's based entirely on reality and truth.
if your neighbor doesn't buy into the same societal convention, he will kill you and take your stuff and your women. So good luck with that.
Thus the need for a gun to defend your self and your stuff .
And so the conversation comes full circle and proves not only the RIGHT for individuals to own any weapon we choose, but also describes the necessity.
I am not a Christian and don't believe in any bible stories. I was talking about whatever person was the first person. The first person to evolve from apes to be an actual person as we are now, and not a half-ape/half-man hybrid.
No such thing. No definition of "human" is anywhere near specific enough to designate a "first" human. If you somehow do arbitrarily pick the "first" human, they will have been much more similar to their parents than to you. Do the natural rights apply to the child, but not the parents?
Right on, Buster.
Does anyone else completely tune people out once they start throwing around "you conservatives" or "you liberals" as an argument?
Yes.
And so the conversation comes full circle and proves not only the RIGHT for individuals to own any weapon we choose, but also describes the necessity.
Not really. The description is hypothetical...if the situation were a given, then it could be said that owning a weapon is a necessity.
Not really. The description is hypothetical...if the situation were a given, then it could be said that owning a weapon is a necessity.
Are you saying it isn't? For me owning a gun IS a necessity. In fact my owning of a gun is a necessity even for those who choose not to own a gun themselves. Private gun ownership makes everyone safer, including those who don't own guns.
No such thing. No definition of "human" is anywhere near specific enough to designate a "first" human. If you somehow do arbitrarily pick the "first" human, they will have been much more similar to their parents than to you. Do the natural rights apply to the child, but not the parents?
All evolved species have evolved due to mutations. At some point a mutation occurred that gave us the very first human being. The non-humans who gave birth to this human would not have human rights, but their offspring would.
What does this really have to do with anything?
No, no... guns are evil. The tools of Satan to kill babies and puppies.
Save yourself before they seize your soul.
Mail all your guns to me.
Do it now... for the children.
No, no... guns are evil. The tools of Satan to kill babies and puppies.
Save yourself before they seize your soul.
Mail all your guns to me.
Do it now... for the children.
I'll take a few more but I will have to buy a bigger safe. Please send the ammo that goes with the guns so I don't have to buy anymore. Thanks.
That's awesome!
Now if every law abiding citizen in that neighborhood or section of the city were to get a CCW license and made it known to all in the papers and airwaves, I bet you that crimes like that would nearly cease. If they did not stop right away, they would stop right away after a few more gang-banger want-a-be's got a cap in the forehead.
Are you saying it isn't? For me owning a gun IS a necessity. In fact my owning of a gun is a necessity even for those who choose not to own a gun themselves. Private gun ownership makes everyone safer, including those who don't own guns.
Yes, I am saying it isn't--for me. And it's fine with me if you think that owning a gun is a necessity for
you, as long as you're a responsible gun owner.
I don't agree that private gun ownership makes
everyone safer. It only makes others safer if, for instance, a gun owner happens to successfully intervene if non-owners are being threatened. It makes others unsafe if, say, that gun owner's kid or angry spouse happens to shoot bullets through the wall.
if your neighbor doesn't buy into the same societal convention, he will kill you and take your stuff and your women. So good luck with that.
Thus the need for a gun to defend your self and your stuff .
Its interesting to me that some people are so hung up on spelling, grammar, and dialectic jargon that a stunning example of crystal clear thinking like this sails right over their heads while the rest of us just put the mouse down and slide the keyboard back knowing there is nothing else to add.
Thus the need for a gun to defend your self and your stuff .
Are you inferring that you've used your gun to protect yourself or your stuff?
Its interesting to me that some people are so hung up on spelling, grammar, and dialectic jargon that a stunning example of crystal clear thinking like this sails right over their heads while the rest of us just put the mouse down and slide the keyboard back knowing there is nothing else to add.
Ok, so you agree with him. I'll alert the media.:right:
10-4 on da zip and beestie
Some folks will argue with a damn stump.
If he tries he will meet the same fate he planned for me but in my case, I'll be using defensive force and exercising my rights, while he'll be using offensive force while trying to violate them. My position is clear, concise, and has no flaws or ambiguity. This is because, unlike yours, it's based entirely on reality and truth.
Don't you understand that if your neighbor would do this, he doesn't share the rights that supposedly were floating around waiting for you to be born? Rights are a societal convention. That's reality and truth, not mysticism and mumbo-jumbo, like your theory.
Right on, Buster.
Does anyone else completely tune people out once they start throwing around "you conservatives" or "you liberals" as an argument?
Why not tune out (or condemn) the people who offer no substance to a debate, just pop in to insult a debater?
Society doesn't give rights, it restricts them.
If you were the only person in North America you have the right to do anything you want... anything. You could shit in the punch bowl if you wanted.
BUT, if one (or more) people move in, you now have a society which limits your rights to do anything you want because you have other people to consider. And they you, which limits their right to do anything they want.
Society restricts rights.
yes Spex , I have had to use a weapon to defend my self ( against a Neibors dog ) , myself and my wife have fire arms , we know how to use them affectivly , and will use them if nessary. One of the reasons we moved here is that this area is sooo much nicer than where than where we both came from ( Memphis TN ) .
You nay have heard of White flight , we flew , not just from the city , or the area , we left the whole damn state !!!
Rights are as real, tangible, physical, and undeniable as gravity. You can go in the deepest recesses of space and gravity still exists, though its strength is diminished. Your rights exist even within the most fascist and brutal nations, they are being violated and you are prevented from exercising them, but they still exist. You can not physically take away gravity, and you can not physically take away rights.
It would be impossible in this universe but you can take away gravity. Gravity is a physical acceleration, it has physical properties, and you can take it away. You will never be able to reach absolute zero in this universe but it is possible hypothetically. You can not hypothetically have someone born without natural rights. If you are born into a fascist nation, your rights are taken away from you when you are born; you were never born without them.
That is an opinion. I'm talking about facts.
This is pointless. There is no way to prove or disprove this.
Rights exist as a matter of fact, not opinion.
Back that up. I am interested in seeing how it is a fact.
Rights existing is an opinion because they are not physical. There is no way to scientifically find natural rights just as there is no way to scientifically find a soul.
There was a first human and there will be a last human too. The age at which someone becomes an adult is fluid. I know plenty of 60 year olds who are not adults, and 15 year olds who are.
I am seriously not trying to call you out on this but that is not how evolution works. There are two kinds of evolution: microevolution, a change in of an allele in a population, and macroevolution, the separation of two species. One generation will never experience macroevolution or microevolution but only a single mutation. There was never a first human just as there is never a time when someone becomes an adult. It is a long slow gradual process where you can never tell when a species does evolve.
No, human rights didn't appear when the first human was born. They have existed for all time and the first human was imbued with them at birth.
Do you believe in intelligent design. Evolution is random so the chances of life actually evolving into humans are one in a near infinite number. We just got that one time where we did evolve into humans
The beauty of natural rights is they don't have to be enumerated or codified. We have the right to do ANYTHING as long as our actions do not prevent another person from exercising their rights, and do not physically harm or endanger that person or their property.
I really don't believe the world is that simple. Here is a real life situation with my roommate and my hallway. He wants to go to bed at 9:00 at night. The rest of the hallway wants to have fun and be loud all night. There is a conflict of interests. It is my roommate's right to get sleep but it is my hallway's right to have fun and be loud. To be able to live peacefully together, these two groups will have to compromise. My roommate will have to put up with the noise until 11:00 and then my hallway will have to be quiet. Both groups have to give up their rights to function within a community. If my roommate didn't live in a community, he would be able to sleep whenever he wants without distractions. If my hallway didn't live in a community, they would be able to be as loud as they want for as long as they want.
I don't argue this. I've always maintained that one persons rights end where another's begin.
So you agree that people have to compromise when they live in a community?
But you seem to not only have a hard time comprehending the meaning of rights, but you also have a hard time distinguishing them from privileges or desires. My right to sing a song you don't like supersedes your desire not to hear it. The most minor of my rights is more important than your most fervent desire.
So where is this list of rights, privileges, and desires?
If you love someone, does it exist? Can someone take from you the love you have for your mother? Is the love you have for your mother merely an illusion?
Love is caused by chemicals in the brain. If you take away the chemicals you take away the love.
There is no illusion of rights. There are rights and there are privileges and they are complete opposites. When you live in a "society" you don't have to give up your rights or even compromise them anymore than just respecting the equal rights of others. Most of the time there are those in a society who want to impose their desire onto others and prevent them from exercising their rights through force, but they still have the rights.
I think we agree but just are using different words.
If I live in a society that has a social norm that says you can not drink and drive.
I can physically drink and drive even when I live in this society. We both agree on this.
I am saying that once we have broken that norm, we have distanced ourselves from that society which will bring consequences on us that will usually inflict on our rights (going to jail, being fined, ostracized by the rest of the society).
Uk had 54 gun related deaths last year. gun control does work, its just that America is paranois as fuck, just because you have an old piece of paper that says you have the right to bear arms doesnt mean you should.
Uk had 54 gun related deaths last year. gun control does work, its just that America is paranois as fuck, just because you have an old piece of paper that says you have the right to bear arms doesnt mean you should.
The UK is not the US. Different cultures, different ideas. People in the US don't trust police to do everything for them, including protect them. UK culture emphasizes government protection for almost everything, including a
ban pointy objects. :rolleyes:
Suggesting the laws of one country would have the same effects (both positive and negative) on the other isn't really valid.
Society doesn't give rights, it restricts them.
If you were the only person in North America you have the right to do anything you want... anything. You could shit in the punch bowl if you wanted.
...
Sounds more like no responsibility and a free schedule, not rights.
Rights are agreed-upon behaviors.
Spexx, think about it this way.
If you found a small, isolated culture in the jungle where it was the societal norm to sacrifice two dozen children each year in a very long, painful ritual, would you consider that wrong? Do those children have a "right" to life that supersedes their society's agreed-upon behaviors?
Spexx, think about it this way.
If you found a small, isolated culture in the jungle where it was the societal norm to sacrifice two dozen children each year in a very long, painful ritual, would you consider that wrong? Do those children have a "right" to life that supersedes their society's agreed-upon behaviors?
You're asking
me how
I feel about those rights. Sure,
I feel that it's wrong. But if rights tangible, objective "things" that we have when we are born, wouldn't the people in the tribe feel the same way that I do? The fact that they don't feel this way supports the concept that rights are not objective or universal, they are societal conventions. Sorry, I disagree with you.
Yes, I am saying it isn't--for me. And it's fine with me if you think that owning a gun is a necessity for you, as long as you're a responsible gun owner.
I don't agree that private gun ownership makes everyone safer. It only makes others safer if, for instance, a gun owner happens to successfully intervene if non-owners are being threatened. It makes others unsafe if, say, that gun owner's kid or angry spouse happens to shoot bullets through the wall.
Actually it makes everyone safer, even when gun owners don't intervene. When criminals don't know who has guns or who doesn't it makes them less likely to commit crimes.
Uk had 54 gun related deaths last year. gun control does work, its just that America is paranois as fuck, just because you have an old piece of paper that says you have the right to bear arms doesnt mean you should.
The UK has a much higher rate of violent crime than does America. They have more rape, assault, etc.
The UK is not the US. Different cultures, different ideas. People in the US don't trust police to do everything for them, including protect them. UK culture emphasizes government protection for almost everything, including a ban pointy objects. :rolleyes:
Suggesting the laws of one country would have the same effects (both positive and negative) on the other isn't really valid.
In the UK they have "subjects", in America we have citizens.
You're asking me how I feel about those rights. Sure, I feel that it's wrong. But if rights tangible, objective "things" that we have when we are born, wouldn't the people in the tribe feel the same way that I do? The fact that they don't feel this way supports the concept that rights are not objective or universal, they are societal conventions. Sorry, I disagree with you.
I'm not sure I've said anything for you to disagree with yet. :confused: For the record, calling natural rights "tangible" and "palpable" is pretty semantically wrong, as far as I'm concerned.
But forget about Radar for a second, I'm asking you about the jungle people who sacrifice kids. Why do you feel that it's wrong for them to sacrifice the children? Is it
only because it would be wrong in your society? Do you recognize the right of the jungle society to sacrifice their children if that's what they've agreed to do, or would you try to make them stop the practice?
Uk had 54 gun related deaths last year. gun control does work, its just that America is paranois as fuck, just because you have an old piece of paper that says you have the right to bear arms doesnt mean you should.
Gun control won't work here because we won't stand for Nanny State control. You guys can't even take a dump without the Old Hag sifting through it for untaxed wealth. Your a) failure to understand why gun control won't work in the states; b) your willingness to live your life under suffocating government control a tenth of which would lead to anarchy if imposed in the states explains c) why you so disdainfully and disrespectfully refer to our Constitution as an old peice of paper.
What do you have that's better? Difficulty: no crusty old hags wearing perfume that costs more than you make in a year.
The UK is not the US. Different cultures, different ideas. People in the US don't trust police to do everything for them, including protect them. UK culture emphasizes government protection for almost everything, including a ban pointy objects. :rolleyes:
Suggesting the laws of one country would have the same effects (both positive and negative) on the other isn't really valid.
I wasnt suggesting one law for both countries, and i agree there are different cultures, but its blatantly obvious that something has to be done to curb gun related deaths in the US. how its done is of course up to your citizens and politicians.
In the UK they have "subjects", in America we have citizens.
sibjects?! this isnt the fuckin 1800's. :rolleyes:
Gun control won't work here because we won't stand for Nanny State control. You guys can't even take a dump without the Old Hag sifting through it for untaxed wealth. Your a) failure to understand why gun control won't work in the states; b) your willingness to live your life under suffocating government control a tenth of which would lead to anarchy if imposed in the states explains c) why you so disdainfully and disrespectfully refer to our Constitution as an old peice of paper.
What do you have that's better? Difficulty: no crusty old hags wearing perfume that costs more than you make in a year.
keep repeating "we are free! we are free!". :rolleyes:
youre all too scared to even demonstrate against your governments, and you cant say "suicide" on TV. :rolleyes:
The UK has a much higher rate of violent crime than does America. They have more rape, assault, etc.
source?
I am a very strong believer in sociological forces.
For example, if you give me 20 babies I believe I can raise them to believe anything I want them too, with one or two expeptions for the "rebels". If you look throughout history you can find just about every practice as a norm that we find to be unethical. Most of our morals have been brought to us by the socity we live in. The only expections I can think of are practices that would wipe a community out, like sacrificing kids (that is not a shot at you Clod) or complete castration of males.
...But forget about Radar for a second, I'm asking you about the jungle people who sacrifice kids. Why do you feel that it's wrong for them to sacrifice the children? Is it only because it would be wrong in your society? Do you recognize the right of the jungle society to sacrifice their children if that's what they've agreed to do, or would you try to make them stop the practice?
I feel it's wrong because that's the way the society in which I was raised feels. I would not try to change them anymore than I would allow them to change me to their way of thinking.
I maintain that if left alone, unsocialized, we would not hesitate to kill one another in order to eat and procreate. Think about how a three year old acts. If another kid has a toy that he wants, he'll walk over and bop the kid and take the toy.
I wasnt suggesting one law for both countries, and i agree there are different cultures, but its blatantly obvious that something has to be done to curb gun related deaths in the US. how its done is of course up to your citizens and politicians.
Well, you suggested that gun control works for the UK. What do you suggest for the US?
youre all too scared to even demonstrate against your governments, and you cant say "suicide" on TV.
That source you're getting your information from? Yeah, you might want to
consider changing it. I have no idea where you're getting the "can't say 'suicide'" bit, either. Are you just making stuff up?
America is paranois as fuck
Funny. In the US, we consider
these actions to be "paranoid as fuck".
Funny. In the US, we consider these actions to be "paranoid as fuck".
In America, we have a car in every garage. In jolly old England they have a camera up every bunghole.
Besides I think the country that bans any object that
might frighten a little old lady need not lecture the US about paranoia.
All evolved species have evolved due to mutations. At some point a mutation occurred that gave us the very first human being. The non-humans who gave birth to this human would not have human rights, but their offspring would.
No such thing. There is no definition of human that could separate parents from children. Just like if you arbitrarily pick a point on the spectrum to be the "first red", it's going to be pretty orange.
The point of this is that rights can't be a physical reality if they only apply to an essentially arbitrarily chosen genome.
Yep, nice insults from all. Thanks Rkz...though everyone thinks you're an ass I make a concerted effort to listen to you and give a shit.
I'm done with this place. You're not the nice people I once thought. Have a great time. Luckily I have a right to think you suck.
Everyone?
You think I suck? Hmmm. I've always liked you.
Ok, from now on, fuck off and don't discuss anything with me.
If you are a child and can't deal with someone who disagrees with you, I don't want to waste my time with you now.
More time for actual conversation.
Can't see humor for what it is you are not worth it.
Originally Posted by jinx
Right on, Buster.
Does anyone else completely tune people out once they start throwing around "you conservatives" or "you liberals" as an argument?
Yes.
Agreed.
Yup, with you all on that.
Can we include "you fascists" too please? :)
I feel it's wrong because that's the way the society in which I was raised feels. I would not try to change them anymore than I would allow them to change me to their way of thinking.
I don't buy that--you try to change people's minds on here all the time. Okay, some of us are from the same society, but you've discussed things with Brits and Aussies too, and worked to convince them of what you believe. Hell, your whole position on the gun topics is that taking a life is an inherently horrible thing, even if it's a criminal's life. You have a strong sense of right and wrong, Spexx, which means you can't be a complete moral relativist.
I maintain that if left alone, unsocialized, we would not hesitate to kill one another in order to eat and procreate. Think about how a three year old acts. If another kid has a toy that he wants, he'll walk over and bop the kid and take the toy.
You seem to be getting hung up on the idea that we are innately
aware of these natural rights and will always act on them. Obviously that's not true. But if it's wrong to arbitrarily kill a child--if it's wrong to kill a thief trying to steal your chewing gum--then you have already recognized that that person has an inherent right to live. That right supercedes all societal conventions, unless you believe in total moral relativism.
Actually it makes everyone safer, even when gun owners don't intervene. When criminals don't know who has guns or who doesn't it makes them less likely to commit crimes.
Yeah, right. :rolleyes:
There might be a few criminals who'd consider that, but I wouldn't bank on it as fact for a reason to own a gun. If it were, there'd be much less crime everywhere.
There is where there are concealed carry laws. That's been proven in every state that has enacted them.
Yeah, right. :rolleyes:
There might be a few criminals who'd consider that, but I wouldn't bank on it as fact for a reason to own a gun. If it were, there'd be much less crime everywhere.
You are welcome to post a sign on the front of your house indicating your distate for firearms and that you are weapon-free and see how you fare against a non-posted house.
Why, thanks, wolf.
It'd be hard to do though, considering I live in a condo building. Maybe I could hang a sign out my window, see what happens.
There is where there are concealed carry laws.
Except Philadelphia, apparently.
Actually, the problem in Philadelphia is that they so heavily regulate concealed carry permits that it's virtually impossible to get one, unless you are politically connected. Although the rest of the state operates as it's supposed to, as shall-issue, Philadelphia is effectively may-issue.
It can't be that impossible--there are a lot of permit holders in Philly.
youre all too scared to even demonstrate against your governments, and you cant say "suicide" on TV. :rolleyes:
Source?
its just that America is paranois as fuck, just because you have an old piece of paper that says you have the right to bear arms doesnt mean you should.
HA! :fumette:
Good point. I say we ship them all to the IRA. :D
Yeah, right. :rolleyes:
There might be a few criminals who'd consider that, but I wouldn't bank on it as fact for a reason to own a gun. If it were, there'd be much less crime everywhere.
Really? Perhaps you can tell me why in
100% of the states that have allowed concealed permits to be obtained by regular people
(non-cops) crime has decreased dramatically?
sibjects?! this isnt the fuckin 1800's. :rolleyes:
No, but that's the kind of government they still have.
Really? Perhaps you can tell me why in 100% of the states that have allowed concealed permits to be obtained by regular people (non-cops) crime has decreased dramatically?
Another big fat HA! Stop making sense. You are making way to much sense for this place.
Pass me some ammo...
Really? Perhaps you can tell me why in 100% of the states that have allowed concealed permits to be obtained by regular people (non-cops) crime has decreased dramatically?
Does that apply to individual cities as well?
States apply carry laws, cities don't. But if you want to talk about cities, let's start with the cities in America with the strictest gun laws.... Washington D.C., New York City, and Los Angeles. The rate of gun violence in the cities with the harshest gun laws is higher than anywhere else in America, and most certainly higher than any of the cities in America that have carry permits available for regular citizens.
nice comebacks, excellent sources everyone.
youre still wrong.
... I'm asking you about the jungle people who sacrifice kids. Why do you feel that it's wrong for them to sacrifice the children? Is it only because it would be wrong in your society? Do you recognize the right of the jungle society to sacrifice their children if that's what they've agreed to do, or would you try to make them stop the practice?
I feel it's wrong because that's the way the society in which I was raised feels. I would not try to change them anymore than I would allow them to change me to their way of thinking.
...
I don't buy that--you try to change people's minds on here all the time. Okay, some of us are from the same society, but you've discussed things with Brits and Aussies too, and worked to convince them of what you believe. Hell, your whole position on the gun topics is that taking a life is an inherently horrible thing, even if it's a criminal's life. You have a strong sense of right and wrong, Spexx, which means you can't be a complete moral relativist.
...
You're right, I probably would try to change them.:notworthy
... But if it's wrong to arbitrarily kill a child--if it's wrong to kill a thief trying to steal your chewing gum--then you have already recognized that that person has an inherent right to live. That right supercedes all societal conventions, unless you believe in total moral relativism.
My point is that
I/we recognize that a person has the right to live because that's the way we were socialized. Not everybody thinks that way, which means there are not universal "rights", they differ by society. I think your example of the jungle people shows that. Ask them if the children have a right to live. Ask a Saudi if a thief has the right not to have his hand cut off for stealing. As soon as you understand that rights differ by society, you have to acknowledge that they are determined by society.
It can't be that impossible--there are a lot of permit holders in Philly.
Not impossible, just difficult.
While murder and other violent crime rates are declining in many cities, they are still on the rise in Philadelphia. Pennsylvania liberalized its concealed carry law in 1989, but Philadelphia demanded and received an exemption.
The results are troubling.
Philadelphia has the highest firearms murder rate of the 10 largest U.S. cities.
Shootings accounted for 80 percent of the more than 400 murders that occurred in Philadelphia in 1997.
The city estimates that gun violence costs it approximately $50 million annually in additional policing and health care-related expenses.
As soon as you understand that rights differ by society, you have to acknowledge that they are determined by society.
No, society determines what rights are taken away.
No, society determines what rights are taken away.
:brikwall:
That's what happens when you're wrong.
That's what happens when you're wrong.
Only facts are wrong. Facts can be proven. Prove your point. :donut:
Many people here, including myself, have proven that natural rights exist until taken away by society.... all great scholars and even the founding fathers understood that.
But alas, you keep ordering fudge ripple, silly.
My point is that I/we recognize that a person has the right to live because that's the way we were socialized. Not everybody thinks that way, which means there are not universal "rights", they differ by society. I think your example of the jungle people shows that. Ask them if the children have a right to live. Ask a Saudi if a thief has the right not to have his hand cut off for stealing. As soon as you understand that rights differ by society, you have to acknowledge that they are determined by society.
But it's not a discussion about the practical application of reality. "Human rights" is a philosophical question. If the jungle people are
wrong, then they do not have the ability to determine the children's right to live. They have the ability to determine
whether the child lives, but they are wrong when they do so. If they are wrong, there has to be a reason. The reason is that the child has an inherent right to be allowed to live, and no amount of societal tradition will make it okay for them to kill the child. It's not a legal or a practical question, it's a question of morality.
But it's not a discussion about the practical application of reality. "Human rights" is a philosophical question. If the jungle people are wrong, then they do not have the ability to determine the children's right to live. They have the ability to determine whether the child lives, but they are wrong when they do so. If they are wrong, there has to be a reason. The reason is that the child has an inherent right to be allowed to live, and no amount of societal tradition will make it okay for them to kill the child. It's not a legal or a practical question, it's a question of morality.
And morals are subjective.
If you really believe that, then you have no business trying to tell anyone that killing a criminal is wrong.
If you really believe that, then you have no business trying to tell anyone that killing a criminal is wrong.
Why can't I want you to have the same subjective morals that I have? Join my team! Come on in - the water's fine!
BTW, I think there are times when killing a criminal is right. When you can save someone from immediate physical harm, it's ok. It's not ok to kill someone over "stuff", and it's preferrable to let our legal system work the way it is intended. If there's a problem with the system, fix it, don't become a vigilante. And Capital punishment is ok for the worst, and repeat offenders.
edit - bars and spotlights are better and safer than guns - kids don't accidently shoot each other with spotlights.
Why can't I want you to have the same subjective morals that I have?
WOW, there is a non-open minded thought if I have ever seen one.
Someone please call the morality police. :rolleyes:
WOW, there is a non-open minded thought if I have ever seen one.
Someone please call the morality police. :rolleyes:
Wow, you're not even smart enough to realize that you do the same thing, pops.
Wow, you're not even smart enough to realize that you do the same thing, pops.
Oh, that makes it right. You truly are the King of the Double Standard Gang. I never said that anyone should adopt my morals on any issue, only about how I felt about an issue.
Wow, you're not even smart enough to realize that you do the same thing, pops.
My mistake. You don't want to convince people who don't have your morals, you just want to ridicule them. Phwew, for a minute I thought we had something in common, but no, your still just stupid and foolish.
you just want to ridicule them. .... no, your still just stupid and foolish.
Wow.... there goes that double standard again! Somebody get me a fly swatter.
Why can't I want you to have the same subjective morals that I have? Join my team! Come on in - the water's fine!
Because that's an oxymoron. If morals are truly subjective, then you have to fully accept that mine are just as valid and
correct as yours. We must both be right. If you're right and I'm wrong, then morals aren't completely subjective.
It's
obvious that
you have a
sense of
right and
wrong. Morality is not subjective. Some things are always wrong, no matter how many people do them.
Because that's an oxymoron. If morals are truly subjective, then you have to fully accept that mine are just as valid and correct as yours. We must both be right. If you're right and I'm wrong, then morals aren't completely subjective.
It's obvious that you have a sense of right and wrong. Morality is not subjective. Some things are always wrong, no matter how many people do them.
Our individual morals don't have to be mutually exclusive, do they? Your morals are valid, in that they are what they are. We are both right,
in our own opinion. Surely, morals can change. You don't feel the same way morally now as you did as a teenager, do you? If they can change, why can they change do to the influence of someone else?
Gotta log off for a while.
My point is that I/we recognize that a person has the right to live because that's the way we were socialized. Not everybody thinks that way, which means there are not universal "rights", they differ by society. I think your example of the jungle people shows that. Ask them if the children have a right to live. Ask a Saudi if a thief has the right not to have his hand cut off for stealing. As soon as you understand that rights differ by society, you have to acknowledge that they are determined by society.
If that's your point, than you have no point. We do have universal, immutable, and undeniable rights and they are the same for all people regardless of what personal beliefs they have or what kind of culture or "society" they live in or were raised in. Some "societies" violate rights more than others, but that does not mean people don't have the universal and natural rights that are being violated.
No, society determines what rights are taken away.
Society can't take away rights, it can just violate them.
Our individual morals don't have to be mutually exclusive, do they? Your morals are valid, in that they are what they are. We are both right, in our own opinion. Surely, morals can change. You don't feel the same way morally now as you did as a teenager, do you? If they can change, why can they change do to the influence of someone else?
Gotta log off for a while.
I'm sure if you ask a child molester whether he's doing something immoral, he'll say he's not. Hitler thought what he was doing was saving the world. The fact remains these people are insane and are sociopaths.
Yes, individuals may have different sets of morality. Some find merely being born gay to be immoral. Some find sex before marriage to be immoral.
Personal morality and government morality are entirely different things. Your personal morality does not grant you any authority to legislate your religious beliefs onto others. Government morality is merely here to ensure that we don't physically harm, endanger, or violate the person, property, or rights of non-consenting others.
Peter McWilliams does a fantastic job of describing this more eloquently than I'd ever be able to in his book "Ain't Nobody's Business If You Do".
The whole book is available to read online
(though I recommend buying a copy). Here is the chapter in question...
http://mcwilliams.com/books/books/aint/104.htmI'd be afraid an attacker would simply take the gun away and shoot me with it.
You don't feel the same way morally now as you did as a teenager, do you?
With regard to the slaughter of children, yes, I do. It is generally agreed that there are only a few natural rights, but they are the biggies. No one will ever convince me that I am wrong about them. If you believe that there are situations where it is not utterly wrong to slaughter innocent children for the purposes of tradition or societal convention, then yes, our moralities are definitely mutually exclusive.
I'd be afraid an attacker would simply take the gun away and shoot me with it.
Not an uncommon or unfounded fear. You are one of the people who fall into the category of being one who should never own a gun. Just call 911 and hope for the best.
If I had a gun in a situation like that I would probably end up closing my eyes and firing the gun wildly making a bullet ridden cut out in the wall of the attacker and not actually hitting him.
I will never own a gun because I would never ever be able to use it. I will never own a gun because I hate guns. I will never own a gun because I believe they are dangerous. I will never own a gun because I just can't picture myself with a weapon anywhere outside a video game.
But I will defend to the death your right to own one.
But I will defend to the death your right to own one.
Just not with a gun right? :)
If I had a gun in a situation like that I would probably end up closing my eyes and firing the gun wildly making a bullet ridden cut out in the wall of the attacker and not actually hitting him.
That's the reason you have to have the commitment to practice to be justified in owning a gun.
Where I live there are no sidewalks, hence minimal pedestrians, so I don't practice as much as I should.
States apply carry laws, cities don't. But if you want to talk about cities, let's start with the cities in America with the strictest gun laws.... Washington D.C., New York City, and Los Angeles. The rate of gun violence in the cities with the harshest gun laws is higher than anywhere else in America, and most certainly higher than any of the cities in America that have carry permits available for regular citizens.
That doesn't answer my question, but that's OK. I know the answer is "no," in many cities that allow concealed carry, such as Denver, Minneapolis, Philadelphia...
Actually it does answer your question, and if it's your contention that gun violence has risen in Philadelphia, Denver, or Minneapolis since concealed carry permits were made, I'd demand proof and that you to provide a link between carry permits and the increased violent crimes. All the research I've done points to gangs fighting over drug territory and this would go away if we'd only end the drug war entirely.
I defy you or anyone else to provide a single example of a legal concealed permit holder that has ever committed a violent crime with a gun.
Society can't take away rights, it can just violate them.
Nonsense, if they prevent you from exercising them they have taken them away. A right delayed is a right denied, and a right denied is a right lost.
Wrong. Our rights are our rights even when they are violated. Our rights can't be taken away, given away, bought, sold, or traded. They exist even when we are prevented from exercising them. A violated right is still a right. If someone cuts out your tongue, it doesn't remove your right to free speech.
What if those rights were changed or removed through a legal process by the government?
The government is a creation of the people. It derives its limited powers from the consent of the governed. Because individuals never have the right to "remove" the legal rights of others, they can't give this authority to government. Any "legal process" that attempts to remove or change our rights is an invalid one.
Government is here to protect our rights, not to define them, limit them, or especially "remove" them.
Actually it does answer your question, and if it's your contention that gun violence has risen in Philadelphia, Denver, or Minneapolis since concealed carry permits were made, I'd demand proof and that you to provide a link between carry permits and the increased violent crimes. All the research I've done points to gangs fighting over drug territory and this would go away if we'd only end the drug war entirely.
My contention?? Remember, you said:
Really? Perhaps you can tell me why in 100% of the states that have allowed concealed permits to be obtained by regular people (non-cops) crime has decreased dramatically?
So I asked:
Does that apply to individual cities as well?
Which you didn't answer, so I answered myself.
I defy you or anyone else to provide a single example of a legal concealed permit holder that has ever committed a violent crime with a gun.
I don't know what that has to do with anything I said...but I'll take your challenge just for fun:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_kmtpi/is_200608/ai_n16613984
What do I win?
1) Your article said the weapon was permitted, not that he had a concealed permit.
2) You neglected to mention that the old man who was robbed by the 19 year old thug, was a 70 year old man or that he'd taken a diamond ring worth nearly $18,000.
3) As far as I can tell the trial is ongoing and he has not been convicted of murder.
4) If you rob someone and you get killed by them, it's not murder no matter what anyone says... including a jury.
Nope, you've failed the challenge.
You asked if what I said applies to cities, and yes it does. Crime has dropped in every city that has allowed concealed carry laws including Philadelphia, Denver, and Minnesota.
Not an uncommon or unfounded fear. You are one of the people who fall into the category of being one who should never own a gun. Just call 911 and hope for the best.
I'm just barely smart enough not to compound the problem.
The government is a creation of the people. It derives its limited powers from the consent of the governed. Because individuals never have the right to "remove" the legal rights of others, they can't give this authority to government. Any "legal process" that attempts to remove or change our rights is an invalid one.
Government is here to protect our rights, not to define them, limit them, or especially "remove" them.
So what happens if the elected representatives decide to change your rights concerning free speech or other rights?
Than you revolt and kill them. Elected officials should always fear for their lives if they violate our rights.
But isn't your rights defined by the law of the nation you live in? If your leaders change those rights then are they breaking the law or violating anything?
Yes this is all hypothetical and not likely to happen in most western nations but what if it did?
No, your rights are not defined by the law of a nation you happen to live in. The ways in which a nation will protect your rights or violate them are in the laws. Some nations violate rights more than others.
When the elected officials (servants) of a country try to infringe upon the rights of their masters, they are violating the bounds of their legitimate authority and violating the trust put in them.
It is not only the right, but also the duty of the people to revolt when this happens.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
But this didn't apply to all men when it was written. It took a civil war and 100 years after that, amendments to secure those rights for african americans.
Not only that but it didn't include women. It took the 19th amendment of the early 20th century to allow women to vote in america. The point is since the elected government can make changes to the constitution then what is to stop it from making more changes besides revolt? An armed revolt in america today will amount to nothing without military support.
Yes, it did apply to all men when it was written. It didn't apply to blacks (who were considered livestock) and didn't apply to women. The civil war was not over slavery.
Yes, the Constitution can change with time, but it was created to place limits on government, not our rights. This is why the 16th and 18th amendments were violations...that and the 16th was fraudulently ratified.
Less than 1/1000th of our military would ever fire on Americans even during a revolt and if they were ordered to do so, and those that didn't would defend us from those who did.
1) Your article said the weapon was permitted, not that he had a concealed permit.
2) You neglected to mention that the old man who was robbed by the 19 year old thug, was a 70 year old man or that he'd taken a diamond ring worth nearly $18,000.
3) As far as I can tell the trial is ongoing and he has not been convicted of murder.
4) If you rob someone and you get killed by them, it's not murder no matter what anyone says... including a jury.
Nope, you've failed the challenge.
He did have a conceal permit, was convicted, and is now in prison. #4 is your opinion only.
You asked if what I said applies to cities, and yes it does. Crime has dropped in every city that has allowed concealed carry laws including Philadelphia, Denver, and Minnesota.
:lol:
No, your rights are not defined by the law of a nation you happen to live in. The ways in which a nation will protect your rights or violate them are in the laws. Some nations violate rights more than others.
When the elected officials (servants) of a country try to infringe upon the rights of their masters, they are violating the bounds of their legitimate authority and violating the trust put in them.
It is not only the right, but also the duty of the people to revolt when this happens.
Yes, it did apply to all men when it was written. It didn't apply to blacks (who were considered livestock) and didn't apply to women. The civil war was not over slavery.
That statement contradicts itself because blacks are men. And women are their equals.
I know the civil war was not about slavery, it was about state's right but it took a conflict like that to get rid of slavery and see black folks as people too. But it took another 100 years before they were seen as equals. So that initial statement of the declaration of independence didn't really apply to all men.
Yes, the Constitution can change with time, but it was created to place limits on government, not our rights. This is why the 16th and 18th amendments were violations...that and the 16th was fraudulently ratified.
Then why are they in effect?
Less than 1/1000th of our military would ever fire on Americans even during a revolt and if they were ordered to do so, and those that didn't would defend us from those who did.
That is good to know.
That statement contradicts itself because blacks are men. And women are their equals.
I know the civil war was not about slavery, it was about state's right but it took a conflict like that to get rid of slavery and see black folks as people too. But it took another 100 years before they were seen as equals. So that initial statement of the declaration of independence didn't really apply to all men.
At that time, it applied to all who were considered men. And later it also applied to women, and to blacks who were then considered men. Whether or not women or blacks were considered equals at the time it was written is completely irrelevant and does nothing whatsoever to invalidate what they said.
Then why are they in effect?
They aren't. The 18th was a violation of our rights and of the limits on the powers of Congress, but even still it was repealed. And the 16th also became null and void the moment it was fraudulently ratified. Several IRS agents asked the government to show them the law that compels Americans to pay income taxes. Rather than show them, they were given resignation papers because there is no such law.
That is good to know.
I agree.
He did have a conceal permit, was convicted, and is now in prison. #4 is your opinion only.
:lol:
#4 is the opinion of every rational, reasonable, and intelligent person.
You didn't provide any links, and have proven no rise in crime since carry permits were instituted.
The man didn't commit murder, and if he was convicted
(which I've seen no evidence of) of such, he was convicted wrongfully.
It's not murder to shoot the person who robbed you, raped you, assaulted you, etc. even if he's trying to get away with the loot. If I catch someone stealing my car, I have the right to shoot them dead.
At that time, it applied to all who were considered men. And later it also applied to women, and to blacks who were then considered men. Whether or not women or blacks were considered equals at the time it was written is completely irrelevant and does nothing whatsoever to invalidate what they said.
How can you say that? People are people and because the views at the time does not make specific groups any less as people. So the "all men are created equal" idea was a farce at the time. All men were created equal as long as they were white males is what it meant. If it wasn't, then there would have never been any need for later laws to include others.
They aren't. The 18th was a violation of our rights and of the limits on the powers of Congress, but even still it was repealed. And the 16th also became null and void the moment it was fraudulently ratified. Several IRS agents asked the government to show them the law that compels Americans to pay income taxes. Rather than show them, they were given resignation papers because there is no such law.
The 18th amendment was repealed, my mistake. But the 16th was not and your income taxes are still in place despite IRS agents inquiry on the law.
I'm increasingly of the belief that this thread should be closed for protection of us all. Not only have two Dwellars resigned as a result of it, in a fit of pique, but yesterday J and I had a big fight over it. It seems to be causing some sort of weird change to the, er, natural order of things.
I'm increasingly of the belief that this thread should be closed for protection of us all. Not only have two Dwellars resigned as a result of it, in a fit of pique, but yesterday J and I had a big fight over it. It seems to be causing some sort of weird change to the, er, natural order of things.
I was thinking of suggesting closing the thread as well, but I didn't know that was done in this forum. I wish I hadn't opened it to begin with.
Amazing what a simple question can bring about.
How can you say that? People are people and because the views at the time does not make specific groups any less as people. So the "all men are created equal" idea was a farce at the time. All men were created equal as long as they were white males is what it meant. If it wasn't, then there would have never been any need for later laws to include others.
It wasn't a farce and yes the views at the time did matter. Stop acting like historical context is irrelevant. Making white men free was a first step. They were not free before this. At the time the declaration was made, it was a huge leap forward because it said power came from the people, and not god or a king.
The 18th amendment was repealed, my mistake. But the 16th was not and your income taxes are still in place despite IRS agents inquiry on the law.
According to the first Supreme Court, and several subsequent supreme court cases, all laws which contradict the U.S. Constitution are automatically null and void. The 16th was not ratified by the correct number of states to have it ratified, and even if it did have the correct number of states, it violates other parts of the Constitution.
When you make an amendment to the Constitution it either adds to it, or removes another part of it. It may not contradict another part.
The Supreme Court has also ruled that income taxes are for corporations and not for individuals.
we're john wayne motherfuckers
I was thinking of suggesting closing the thread as well, but I didn't know that was done in this forum. I wish I hadn't opened it to begin with.
Amazing what a simple question can bring about.
It's all your fault. I bet you killed Kenny, too, you bastard!:p
Many people here, including myself, have proven that natural rights exist until taken away by society.... all great scholars and even the founding fathers understood that.
But alas, you keep ordering fudge ripple, silly.
All you've done is express your concept of reality. There's no proof.
With regard to the slaughter of children, yes, I do. It is generally agreed that there are only a few natural rights, but they are the biggies. No one will ever convince me that I am wrong about them.
If your mind is closed in this matter, there's no need to continue the debate
If you believe that there are situations where it is not utterly wrong to slaughter innocent children for the purposes of tradition or societal convention, then yes, our moralities are definitely mutually exclusive.
I don't "believe that there are situations where it is not utterly wrong to slaughter innocent children for the purposes of tradition or societal convention", but I reserve the right to change my mind.:rolleyes:
If that's your point, than you have no point. We do have universal, immutable, and undeniable rights and they are the same for all people regardless of what personal beliefs they have or what kind of culture or "society" they live in or were raised in. Some "societies" violate rights more than others, but that does not mean people don't have the universal and natural rights that are being violated.
Wrong. They may violate what
you perceive as rights, but your perception doesn't make it so.
we're john wayne motherfuckers
Personally speaking, I've never fucked John Wayne's mother.
Wrong. They may violate what you perceive as rights, but your perception doesn't make it so.
Wrong. My rights aren't a perception, a "concept", or a social agreement. My rights are a tangible reality whether or not you choose to ignore them. If you doubt my rights are a reality, try to violate them and you will find very real bullets in your ass.
[SIZE="4"]General Question[/SIZE] Has anyone changed their mind or position because of this thread?
of course not--because arguing is futile!
[SIZE="4"]General Question[/SIZE] Has anyone changed their mind or position because of this thread?
Yeah. four times. Now I'm back where I started, just twice as certain. :nadkick:
But the way, which issue are you talking about? Guns? Rights? Ridiculing posts? Radar's assholicity? Not that it really matters...:D
of course not--because arguing is futile!
Good thing some of us are discussing.
Yeah. four times. Now I'm back where I started, just twice as certain. :nadkick:
But the way, which issue are you talking about? Guns? Rights? Ridiculing posts? Radar's assholicity? Not that it really matters...:D
Looks who is acting Ass Holier than thou now!
Shut this fucking useless damn thread DOWN UT !!!!
Some folksjust cant agree to dissagree .
Someone stop the thread of death! lol
Shut this fucking useless damn thread DOWN UT !!!!
Why? It will just continue on
here and if that thread gets shut down as well, the grudge will appear in a new one. The gun debate has been here before and it will come again in a cycle as sure as the seasons.
The only difference this time around is a handful of hard-headed posters that are more dead set than usual. Let 'em go, ignore the thread, and move on to other things. Why be tied up in this debate? There are better topics of interest, here. I'm not sure why so many people are still clinging to the gun discussion so many days after it was kicked off.
Beer. Beer and posting. Relax. It's good for you, good for everyone despite not all having come to that realization, yet. This isn't that serious of a place. ...is it?
Besides, if UT shuts this down, I'll be one of the few (the first?) to be honored by starting a thread that gets locked. While I'd love to have my name on the wall for that, I don't want it to be over a fucking yes/no poll question!
Beer!
'tho beer and guns don't mix too well.
Musical interlude!
Guns 'N' Roses
Sex Pistols
38 Special ...
I'm increasingly of the belief that this thread should be closed for protection of us all. Not only have two Dwellers resigned as a result of it, in a fit of pique, but yesterday J and I had a big fight over it. It seems to be causing some sort of weird change to the, er, natural order of things.
This thread is not the problem. Elsewhere, xoxoxoBruce, Urbane Guerrilla and Lumberjim, for example, are replying with profanity and personal attacks. So repeatedly that I kept asking if Bruce is OK. Yes Bruce, that is truly
posted exactly as it is worded - no hidden agendas. But in viewing other boards, I now realize the hate and emotion is widespread. Another post asked if the
Chinese have put something in our food (yes they have, but is that toxin relevant?).
Look folks. Like it or not, western world's most violent nation so condones violence that Virginia events resulted in what - a
yawn. Nothing. No action. Forty some school yard massacres in the US when the entire world has seen maybe 10. Massacres so routine that Americans now do nothing - advocate nothing - to avert such massacres. SNAFU. As I posted elsewhere, we should start a pool for where the next massacre will occur. At least we do something.
British had no problem averting this same problem. Brits did step one and step two. Steps are posted repeatedly even in
Banning Abortion and Guns in Free Palestine.
So what do xoxoxoBruce and Urbane Guerrilla post? Personal attacks even on The Economist (because it is a British publication and therefore must be evil?). IOW posts are now less based in logic.
OK, maybe they have a problem viewing from a strategic perspective - cannot see things in terms of the bigger picture. But why so many emotional attacks? No, it’s not just Duck Duck who is attacked personally for age, nationality, etc. Personal attacks are now widespread. Attitude change that coincides with the arrival of and number of posts from TheMercenary.
Yes - America's response to schoolyard massacres is a
yawn. America's response to dead soldiers in "Mission Accomplished"? Attack Ted Koppel for honoring them. We don't even lower the American flag after a soldier dies. We did that during Nam. Acceptance of violence and the resulting increase in personal attacks is a predictable trend. Death and violence has become situation normal. Worse here are the number of posters who now use profanity - a classic symptom of mental illness or a decrease in intelligence. Included are personal attacks on one for age. Some posters can see if they are the target of this post. Did they post multiple personal attacks intentionally laced with profanity? Is that your post? Then you are cited as contributing to the problem. I am not politically correct. I am blunt and I am extremely honest. Blunt honest cites a benchmark: are you part of the problem?
Long ago I pointed specifically to lumberjim’s ‘bullying’ of "April"; a teenager who actually may have been posting for help. How many agreed with me? I don't know. But I now see the exact same 'bullying' posted repeatedly by numerous dwellers.
It's not a gun thread that is the problem. Listed was a logical response by Britain to eliminate their schoolyard massacres. Responses were chock full of profanity and personal attacks by an increasing numbers of posters - who now do it more often. One who says he talks that way needs to remember that The Cellar is not a whore house for your self gratification. We discuss logically here. Personal attacks laced in profanity are not useful, are not logical, and are not entertaining.
Again, did you find lumberjim’s bullying of April acceptable? Then that is part of the problem. We cannot blame it on melamine in the food; nor completely on another
national problem. Somehow, personal attacks laced in profanity are now SNAFU. I counted maybe as many as 10 Cellar dwellers that are guilty in the past month. Some who apologized may be due an apology. I have never in 20 years seen so many personal attacks by so many and so frequently.
Profanity is not the problem. But it is a symptom of those who have taken to a ‘bullying’ and illogical attitudes. Eliminating the profanity is not called for. Eliminating an attitude based in emotion is called for.
Guns will always remain a contencious issue because so many will not even acknowledge that a problem exists. Another schooyard massacre? I'm betting the next massacre in Tennessee. How many want to see me with a four letter word and raise me their middle finger.
The second amendment does not confer an unconditional right to keep and bear arms:
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
How many Americans who choose to exercise their constitutional right to keep and bear arms also choose to exercise their constitutional obligation to join a well regulated militia? Not everybody, I'm guessing.
When the 2nd amendment was drafted, there was no such thing as a modern police force in the United States, so such a provision makes sense given that the citizens had the responsibility of enforcing the law. This explains the first part: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State". Had the concept of a modern police force been invented some 20 to 40 years earlier, the 2nd amendment as we know it would probably not exist.
Look folks. Like it or not, western world's most violent nation so condones violence that Virginia events resulted in what - a yawn. Nothing. No action.
And when tw, the original master of emotional posts and personal attacks was asked 2 simple questions;
What do you expect an individual to do in reaction to this shooting?
What are you doing besides accusing everyone else of doing nothing?
his response was true to form.
When I asked him these questions and Jinx seconded them, tw (Rush Limbawl) starts personal attacks, diversions, and flinging blame on everyone else, like a child caught in the cookie jar.
tw, fuck you, paper tiger.
The second amendment does not confer an unconditional right to keep and bear arms:
How many Americans who choose to exercise their constitutional right to keep and bear arms also choose to exercise their constitutional obligation to join a well regulated militia? Not everybody, I'm guessing.
When the 2nd amendment was drafted, there was no such thing as a modern police force in the United States, so such a provision makes sense given that the citizens had the responsibility of enforcing the law. This explains the first part: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State". Had the concept of a modern police force been invented some 20 to 40 years earlier, the 2nd amendment as we know it would probably not exist.
You're way off base. It had nothing to do with police or lack thereof. Crime wasn't an issue, after all, everyone was armed and the most violent John Waynes on the planet.
The fear of the people was oppressive governments they had escaped from and were determined not to suffer again. Adding the guarantee of the right to keep their guns was a necessary inclusion in the bill of rights to win the support of the people for this or any government. Without the Bill of Rights, all of them, the people wouldn't trust any government to rule them.
Beer!
'tho beer and guns don't mix too well.
Nor beer and gun discussions.
I choose beer :D
Time for more music...from the Dead Milkmen:
"Would I be amused
Would you be impressed
That I had the power
To put a hole into your chest?
When the kids are crying
And the welfare check's been spent
Would I rob a liquor store
To get some money for the rent?
If I had a gun
Would I start smoking Marlboros?
Would I stop smoking Kents?
Would I gain some new respect?
Would I gain some confidence?
Would I suddenly go crazy
And shoot my family?
And see myself years later
On some crime show on TV
If I had a gun
Would I wear it in a holster?
Would I keep it concealed?
Would I put it on the table
Every time that I'm misdealed?
When I hear a nearby gunshot
When I'm up at night alone
Would I feel a little safer
Here in my urban home?
If I had a gun"
I choose beer :D
Me too, I'm having one right now!
Time for more music...from the Dead Milkmen:
"Would I be amused"
There is something simple a lot of urban people just don't think of. We rural people just won't give them up.
If we are forced to, we will just make more and give them to our friends.
End of story.
We have reloading equipment, stockpiles of brass, lead and powder, milling equipment and plans for most of our favorite guns.
Within a week we would be armed.
Within two, our families.
Within a month, our friends.
Done.
Those of you who wish to just will not disarm us. You can't.
It is not possible to undo technology.
Then you will have no idea who is armed, and we will have no reason to restrict what we have, the type or firing rate.
How's that underground bunker coming along, Rob? :)
We have a compound. Sold the bunker.
Not kidding.
rkzenrage, and xoxoxobruce have points there. and I for one agree, one with the reason for the second amendment and the other for being able to arm oneself against an oppressive government.(although it must be said, if the national guard didn't join up with your states movement.. it's a lost cause.. yeah I liked red-dawn and taps as much as the next 35 some-odd-year old.. however.. it is overall a losing battle, (or would be).. not that I wouldn't be willing to take on that cause. better to die for something you believe in than a life of oppression)
I don't know cowhead, the armed citiz.. I mean insurgents in a few Iraqi cities seem to be holding their own. I don't see us going down with any less of a fight here.
I, and those like me, don't just know how to make guns and ammo. We would be able to hold our own just fine.
Hold your own, against what??
You aren't going to hold your own with handguns, which if anything gets banned, they will.
Everything you need to fight an army using guerilla tactics are basically illegal already. Rifles and shotguns will never be banned in this country, at least in the next 30-60 years, and those are the only legal guns that would be useful against an opposing/US army, besides assult rifiles and other powerful guns (I don't know the legal system with them).
If you are going to fight an army, expolsives are the way to go anyways.
Once the government tries to revoke the right to own a handgun, or any other gun, there will be a revolution. Habeas corpus & the Anti-Patriot Acts was far more than a hint.
Many will NOT give up their handguns and will then know that the government has the full intention of making the US a complete police state.
At that point it will be the duty of the citizens of this nations to take their country back and instate a Constitutional government.
Any officers that choose to capitulate with such an order are enemies to the people of the US and should be treated as such. No different than any other occupying force.
Read Jackson.
(explosives and surgical guerrilla sniping would be the most effective)
The problem with the kind of strict gun control you find on college campuses is that it creates a hunting preserve for any crazy willing to defy the gun control.
Creating hunting preserves for crazies is just perverse -- and any advocation of it merits the most brutal and comprehensive of personal attacks and pointed questions as to the advocate's sanity, because what he's doing is asking that things be made
easier for the bad guy. Anyone caught doing that should just do the mature thing and take his correction with good grace; he has, after all, stepped beyond the pale.
It has come to my attention that Utah, the one state in the union that does not prohibit keeping one's own guns on-campus, is also a state that's not had school shootings or near-shooting scrapes, not on college campuses anyway.
One article about it.Tw's post is based on not understanding one simple problem: the degree of your enthusiasm for gun control, an essential precondition for acts of genocide, becomes a good indicator of your corresponding enthusiasm for genocide in general. That this genocide may be directed against people like oneself does not occur to the gun control lovers, which calls into question what they know about how genocides start.
No solid, nor even empirical, rebuttal has ever been made to the findings of the JPFO that there is a preconditional triad to make a genocide either likely or even possible: hatred, however based; governmental power, so states and governments are no remedy nor prophylaxis for genocides; and some means of disarming the out-group being targeted -- the most efficient means ever devised is to forbid the keeping of arms except by those 'approved.'
A gun ban ("gun controls" are always about banning possession of and denying access to guns) can lie in wait for decades before facilitating the dirty work. The gun ban that set up the killing fields in Cambodia had its earliest beginnings on January 27, 1920, and was added to in a significant manner with an ordinance dated March 28, 1938. Four decades from the temperate language of a statute to the pyramids of skulls.
The text of these laws is in French, which I read. The translation provided on the facing pages opposite the original texts presented in Lethal Laws is honest.
Unbanning guns on campus will just make it worse. I do not trust many of the people on my campus, especially when drunk, and it will just create problems.
Banning guns on campus does not mean that someone will shoot up the campus, that is just stupid.
FFA funding party today on the ranch. Many guns raffled off. I almost won an awesome stainless rifle. Couple of young men won some great shotguns.
I lost count of the total.
It's also been proven that in neighbors hoods where assumed legal Gun Owners live, Crime is down. Doesn't that prove for something. Arm the citizen, the criminal stays away. These creeps aren't looking for a fight they wann find some 89 year old with a Cane.
You aren't going to hold your own with handguns, which if anything gets banned, they will.
Everything you need to fight an army using guerilla tactics are basically illegal already. Rifles and shotguns will never be banned in this country, at least in the next 30-60 years, and those are the only legal guns that would be useful against an opposing/US army, besides assult rifiles and other powerful guns (I don't know the legal system with them).
If you are going to fight an army, expolsives are the way to go anyways.
No, We will have to have hand guns. They are light wiegh and indetectable. The main reason not to throw down your guns is
the right to protect ourselves agaist our own fucked up leadership. It's happened throught History Time and Time again. It's due to happen here!
Arm the citizen, the criminal stays away.
Somehow, I'm now concerned with criminals that own guns. People that have been been under house arrest, been in damn jail cells hundreds of times, and have criminal records are usually prohibited from purchasing or owning firearms under federal law. Hopefully, someone will do something to rid us of these scum that plague our neighborhoods.
It's also been proven that in neighbors hoods where assumed legal Gun Owners live, Crime is down. Doesn't that prove for something. Arm the citizen, the criminal stays away. These creeps aren't looking for a fight they wann find some 89 year old with a Cane.
During the hurricanes there was looting in some neighborhoods. (in some not just looting, looters get horny) Often while the residents watched as their homes were looted, and wifes were defiled (God must have been out for a snack).
Other streets remained untouched. Ours was such a street.
Anyone want to guess what the difference was from one street/block to another?
I bet you can guess... some of you are pretty smart. :rolleyes:
Aw Shucks post number 300, if I hurry. Did anyone read the start of this shit. Do you own a gun. Not how you would like gun laws to be. Just yes or no.
Most gun owners are responsible people. They keep their weapons locked away when not in use, take care to make sure they are not loaded when put away, that sort of thing. I do not have issues with such people. They may have a gun to shoot vermin, or to put down a sick animal on the farm, or they may use them to hunt game, or they may like shooting at targets on a shooting range on weekends, or they may just feel safer with a gun nearby. Whatever their reasons, I respect them if they are responsible people.
The problem is, not all gun owners are as careful as they should be.
The careless ones are the ones that make like harder for legitimate gun owners. They are the ones that leave loaded guns lying around, or don't lock their guns away when not in use, and otherwise do not treat their firearms with the respect that they deserve.
All too often such carelessness leads to trouble. Children may find the guns and start playing with them. It's not uncommon for such carelessness to lead to tragedy.
When she was very little, someone I know had the experience of having a loaded gun pointed at her by her brother, who found a rifle in the house that had not been secured properly. She remembers this very clearly, as does her brother. After turning the gun on her, the brother turned the gun on another brother. And then pulled the trigger.
Blam.
Their brother died that day.
I don't know how common such events are in the USA. But if the figure I heard of 30,000 deaths by firearms per year in the USA is accurate, I would not be surprised if some of these deaths occured in similar circumstances.
I don't know what the laws are in the USA in relation to deaths caused by unsecured firearms. I feel that people who do not secure their firearms properly should be responsible for them. If one leaves a firearm lying around unsecured and it causes the death of a child, is it possible for that act of negligence to lead to jail time in the USA?
The problem is, not all gun owners are as careful as they should be.
Very true...that's why I can't agree with the argument that gun ownership makes everyone safer, including non-owners.
When I was 7 years old, the gun owner who lived in the apartment above us wasn't what I'd call careful--he kept his gun in his unlocked nightstand drawer. I know this because one day, two of his kids, not much older than me, decided it would be fun to sneak into dad's room and show the gun to me. Thank god it wasn't pointed at anyone or the trigger pulled. :headshake
So your neighbor was an idiot is reason to tell 300,000,000 people they shouldn't have guns and only the other few million that are criminals will have them?
I've never said that I'm in favor of banning guns. In fact, I've said that I'm fine with people owning guns, as long as they are responsible.
No, We will have to have hand guns. They are light wiegh and indetectable. The main reason not to throw down your guns is
the right to protect ourselves agaist our own fucked up leadership. It's happened throught History Time and Time again. It's due to happen here!
This is the first time in history where the weapon difference between the people and the leadership is so large, it is almost scary. A handgun would do nothing against a tank or anyone with body armor. Remember the LA (?) shooting where those two guys with AKs held off all those police officers for an insane amount of time. And what did the LA police do about it? They gave the police officers more powerful weapons.
To get to my point, handguns won't do shit against an opposing/our own army. And let’s be serious here for a second, if we do become a police/1984 state, who would seriously fight against it? I can't see many people actually doing anything about it and the few people that do fight would be dead very quickly.
So your neighbor was an idiot is reason to tell 300,000,000 people they shouldn't have guns and only the other few million that are criminals will have them?
Only idiots would violate the rights of millions for the irresponsibility of a relative few.
Unbanning guns on campus will just make it worse. I do not trust many of the people on my campus, especially when drunk, and it will just create problems.
Banning guns on campus does not mean that someone will shoot up the campus, that is just stupid.
Pierce, you have a little problem with truth -- especially when you hear it from me, child.
I'd say transferring to a college in Utah would acquaint you personally with the truth of the matter.
Umm....what truth?
I live on one of the biggest campuses in the country. What do I not know?
Umm....what truth?
I live on one of the biggest campuses in the country. What do I not know?
Sigh.:headshake
What don't you know? Practically everything.
Is it or is it not true that Utah doesn't forbid college students concealed carry and on campus? Is it or is it not true that Utah isn't having school shootings?
Was it or was it not true that the U of T at Austin tower's sniper, way back in the Sixties, was shot back at, and in quantity? Wanna guess how many lives were spared because the sniper had to keep his head down?
Banning guns on campus does not mean that someone will shoot up the campus, that is just stupid.
Contrariwise, is it or is it not true that by disarming students and faculty at Virginia Tech, the authorities created a hunting preserve for a crazy? Is it or is it not true that they couldn't stop him immediately at the beginning of his rampage? Is it or is it not true that the only one who killed the crazy was himself -- when he was durn good and well ready? No -- banning the guns meant exactly that somebody would shoot up the campus. Only a matter of time.
Are you living and studying in a hunting preserve?
Is any of this the desirable outcome?
It is not.
Last I heard Minnesota hasn't had a school shooting and legalizing guns on campus wouldn't have stopped the Texas shooting. He was in a tower with a sniper rifle, you are delusional.
Last I heard Minnesota hasn't had a school shooting and legalizing guns on campus wouldn't have stopped the Texas shooting. He was in a tower with a sniper rifle, you are delusional.
Yes. Red Lakes, but no one heard about it because it was an Indian Reservation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Lake_High_School_massacre
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/03/22/school.shooting/index.htmlThe problem with the kind of strict gun control you find on college campuses is that it creates a hunting preserve for any crazy willing to defy the gun control.
Creating hunting preserves for crazies is just perverse -- and any advocation of it merits the most brutal and comprehensive of personal attacks and pointed questions as to the advocate's sanity, because what he's doing is asking that things be made easier for the bad guy. Anyone caught doing that should just do the mature thing and take his correction with good grace; he has, after all, stepped beyond the pale.
It has come to my attention that Utah, the one state in the union that does not prohibit keeping one's own guns on-campus, is also a state that's not had school shootings or near-shooting scrapes, not on college campuses anyway.
One article about it.
[COLOR="Yellow"][SIZE="5"]BWAAK! BWAAK! BWAAK! BWAAAAAK![/SIZE][/COLOR]
Hey, Chicken Little! Shut the f*ck up, ok? You're scaring the children, and pissing off the adults. "Hunting preserves for the crazies"?!?! Do you listen to yourself? Ever? You should stick that load of crap back up your ass so far you choke. *Everyone* would be better off. Including you.
Tens of thousands of campuses in this nation. All "hunting preserves for crazies", eh? Ah, no. The answer is no. Let's change "all" to "any"; are any of these campuses "hunting preserves for crazy people"? Still no, you loudmouth dumbass. You're spreading FUD, fear uncertainty and doubt. Fearmongering. Your logical constructions are gossamer smokescreens that obscure only your blind eyes.
Even Virginia Tech, where we have all witnessed this horrific mass murder does not rise the level of your hysterical raving hyperbole. It's a college campus. A school. People are getting shot
All. The. Time. And in places that *do* allow guns, which leads you to what conclusion? Everywhere is a hunting preserve? BWAAK!
You weary me and sadden me. You should know better. You're an adult (putatively), who has apparently wasted the experiences of a lifetime to be able to know better. To think better, as you sometimes (rarely) demonstrate. It is posts like these that are most common, however. It is posts like these that reveal you to be such a comic figure. Edith Wharton nailed it: "You are intemperate, aggressive, disputatious, and extremely sensitive to adverse opinion", especially regarding gun control, Democrats, and those *stupid* people who oppose your point of view.
Especially the "stupidity" of others. We are not all stupid, UG, and, brace yourself, you are not all that smart.
Darn, and I thought that what he said made some sense.
It does make "some sense" but the hyperbole turns people off.
Hunting preserves for crazies is hardly hyperbole -- especially not when it's happened, and how many times?
Your manner of thinking, V, will help you die very quickly, helplessly, and hopelessly should you ever be so unfortunate as to be caught up in something like this.
My way of thinking, on the other hand, offers you a hope of survival. That's why I'm the good guy.
And if you're not stupid, why aren't you talking smarter? Stupid's a good way to go to your death, but is it a good life? It's likely to mean a short one.
What I tell you is still right, for all that you don't want to hear it ever. Your post (#314) is the equivalent of shoving a finger into each ear until the tips meet and chanting "La la la" at the top of your lungs. Pro-gun, pro-self-defense viewpoints apparently reduce you to an extreme degree of childishness, which is both immoral and grotesque.
Don't be immoral and grotesque.
The gun controllers support not peace, though they promise it, nor freedom, though they promise that also. Instead, their actions perversely open the way to extra crime, episodes of genocide, and a free path to oppressive government. It's not even control: it's banning, and it buys mass abuse. Is that smart?
All these things come to pass when the people are stupid, or unduly cowed. That is why I reject gun control and <s>gun controllers</s> gun banners. [I wish this board supported the strikeout BBcode -- and ASCII coding of foreign characters with diacriticals.]
Yes. Red Lakes, but no one heard about it because it was an Indian Reservation.
I was talking about the University of Minnesota. Sorry for the confusion.
Hunting preserves for crazies is hardly hyperbole -- especially not when it's happened, and how many times?
"Hunting preserves for crazies is hardly hyperbole" :shakes head:
Yes, it is hyperbole. Whether you are ignorant of the definition of the word or simply misusing it, your position "The problem with the kind of strict gun control you find on college campuses is that it creates a hunting preserve for any crazy willing to defy the gun control." is wrong.
hy·per·bo·le (hī-pûr'bə-lē) pronunciation
n.
A figure of speech in which exaggeration is used for emphasis or effect, as in I could sleep for a year or This book weighs a ton.
[Latin hyperbolē, from Greek huperbolē, excess, from huperballein, to exceed : huper, beyond; see hyper– + ballein, to throw.]
***
hunt·ing (hŭn'tĭng) pronunciation
n.
1. The activity or sport of pursuing game.
2. The act of conducting a search for something: house hunting.
3. Electronics. The periodic variation in speed of a synchronous motor with respect to the current.
***
pre·serve (prĭ-zûrv') pronunciation
v., -served, -serv·ing, -serves.
v.tr.
1. To maintain in safety from injury, peril, or harm; protect.
2. To keep in perfect or unaltered condition; maintain unchanged.
3. To keep or maintain intact: tried to preserve family harmony. See synonyms at defend.
4. To prepare (food) for future use, as by canning or salting.
5. To prevent (organic bodies) from decaying or spoiling.
6. To keep or protect (game or fish) for one's private hunting or fishing.
v.intr.
1. To treat fruit or other foods so as to prevent decay.
2. To maintain a private area stocked with game or fish.
n.
1. Something that acts to preserve; a preservative.
2. Fruit cooked with sugar to protect against decay or fermentation. Often used in the plural.
3. An area maintained for the protection of wildlife or natural resources.
4. Something considered as being the exclusive province of certain persons: Ancient Greek is the preserve of scholars.
[Middle English preserven, from Old French preserver, from Medieval Latin praeservāre, from Late Latin, to observe beforehand : Latin prae-, pre- + Latin servāre, to guard, preserve.]
noun
Public land kept for a special purpose: reservation, reserve. See territory.
***
Campuses that don't permit guns are not hunting preserves. For crazies or anyone else. They're schools. You're obviously trying to affect a specific outcome--to permit guns on schoolgrounds; you say as much. Fine. That's your point, ok. But to try to justify it this way is wrong. It's a lie. I don't know or care if your thinking is weak, lazy or poor, the result is the same, it is wrong. I will give you loud, though. And persistent. Your logic is, to be generous, flawed. This because of that. It's just not so. You, personally, may be deluded in this way. But that doesn't make it so. As Sen Patrick Moynihan astutely observed, "You are entitled to your opinion, but you’re not entitled to your own facts."
Your manner of thinking, V, will help you die very quickly, helplessly, and hopelessly should you ever be so unfortunate as to be caught up in something like this.
My way of thinking, on the other hand, offers you a hope of survival. That's why I'm the good guy.
And if you're not stupid, why aren't you talking smarter? Stupid's a good way to go to your death, but is it a good life? It's likely to mean a short one.
You know approximately jack shit about my manner of thinking, and it shows. Do not pretend to know what I think, and do not pretend to speak for me. Your standard U R STOOPID ad hominem attacks show the weakness of your arguments. It's all you've got, and it's pretty weak. As to the quality and length of my life, you know nothing. I do not live in fear, jumping at shadows, even if you do.
What I tell you is still right, for all that you don't want to hear it ever. Your post (#314) is the equivalent of shoving a finger into each ear until the tips meet and chanting "La la la" at the top of your lungs. Pro-gun, pro-self-defense viewpoints apparently reduce you to an extreme degree of childishness, which is both immoral and grotesque.
Don't be immoral and grotesque.
They say beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I cannot control what you see or think, nor do I wish to. I am neither immoral nor grotesque, but if that is what you see, perhaps that, too, is in the eye of the beholder. Of all the people I know, only you hold such an opinion, and you are in no position to judge me.
The gun controllers support not peace, though they promise it, nor freedom, though they promise that also. Instead, their actions perversely open the way to extra crime, episodes of genocide, and a free path to oppressive government. It's not even control: it's banning, and it buys mass abuse. Is that smart?
All these things come to pass when the people are stupid, or unduly cowed. That is why I reject gun control and <s>gun controllers</s> gun banners. [I wish this board supported the strikeout BBcode -- and ASCII coding of foreign characters with diacriticals.]
:sigh:
I will say this: despite your faulty reasoning, the desire to own a gun never grips me more strongly than when I'm reading your posts.
urbane g. I have to say you are wrong. then again... in the hands of the wrong people, yes. those are outcomes. but the bulk of gun owning america are not those people.
Though I am in a rural area and we need guns as tools... many say, "fine" show that you need it". No, why I want a gun is none of your damn business.
Again, don't like em', don't buy em'.
Freedom is not for everyone, it means being around free people. Some can't handle that.
If you are one of them, move.
It's not a hyperbolic rhetorical construction when murders of this kind have happened and happened repeatedly. I've already said that clearly enough for someone thinking clearly to have gotten it. You aren't getting it, V.
Your attempt to declare my logic flawed does not make it so. It does demonstrate pretty murky thinking on your part, though. Avoid being blinded by your own invincible ego, or other less than rational patterns of thought: remember how badly Spexxvet came off in a contest like this one.
Once again, for (or to isolate) those who avoid understanding: if you're so very intelligent, why aren't you talking smarter? Why are you not studying the matter? Afraid of what you'll find in your own soul? I do not fear my subconscious, I'll tell you that much. People with antigun views are very much afraid of what they might do if they permitted themselves arms. If they repress this sufficiently, they have a great deal of trouble understanding it. See "Ragers Against Self-Defense" on JPFO's website for an introduction. (It's a remarkably complete explanation of Spexxvet's demonstrated state of mind wrt private armaments -- he went right down the list.)
Making it easier for criminals and crazies to go a-hunting is not the smart way to do things. The smart way is to make it harder, and strict gun control never makes it harder.
As for knowing your way of thinking, there's only one way that I can't "know approximately jack shit" about it: that's if you never post. I read your posts. I understand the thoughts you write down. I think they are ill founded, and you're going to hear about it, so don't descend into bitching.
My own facts? What nonsense is this? Simply because you won't cure your own ignorance -- which is what I did, and the material I've studied is available also to you -- does not mean I'm wrong. To insist that your ignorance is somehow superior to my study, which is in effect your whole attitude here, is mere perversity. I'm just not stupid enough to insist on believing other than the real, see? There's still plenty of room over here on the side of the angels.
You are in a most regrettable hurry to mistake a will to prevail even under the worst of possibilities with a fearful jumping at shadows. This is of course a very foolish way of looking at it, and one that the sensible man does not accept. It's a martial-arts viewpoint that does not increase paranoia -- quite the contrary. You'd know that had you ever taken any. If you are currently taking something and doubt my words, ask your sensei.
Bloody right I'm judging you -- on the basis of your posts and on your demonstrated thought. I am in the same position to judge you as you are to judge me, on the identical grounds, and my judgemental position is excellent: it is because I too am a moral being. You've got no call to complain -- if you're a moral being. Yet, do I detect a note of complaint?
That you experience at least occasional desire to own a gun is commendable, without qualification. The best people to own guns are the ones with the least desire to slay folks with them. That you do it from mistaking me for some sort of enemy, well, that's unfortunate, but I don't see what I can do to fix it. The people who are most hoplophobic also tend to misidentify potential threats or enemies -- another not-smart behavior. They cannot or will not tell the sheepdogs from the wolves. This incapacity is why I can tell they're not very bright.
Cowhead: just what the hell do you know about it? I challenge you. Back it up or withdraw it.
Meanwhile, for a true understanding of arms:
Halbrook, Stephen P.: That Every Man Be Armed: the Evolution of a Constitutional Right
Lott, John: More Guns Less Crime
Tonso, William R., ed.: The Gun Culture and its Enemies
Kates, Don B.: [practically anything -- this Constitutional lawyer is well grounded]
Schulman, J. Neil: Stopping Power, secondarily Self Control, Not Gun Control
Simkin, Zelman, and Rice: Lethal Laws: "Gun Control" is the Gateway to Genocide
These are just some of what I have at my fingertips. BigV cannot muster the same degree of scholarship.
It's not a hyperbolic rhetorical construction when murders of this kind have happened and happened repeatedly. [ad hominem]I've already said that clearly enough for someone thinking clearly to have gotten it. You aren't getting it, V.[/ad hominem]
Your attempt to declare my logic flawed does not make it so. [ad hominem]It does demonstrate pretty murky thinking on your part, though. Avoid being blinded by your own invincible ego, or other less than rational patterns of thought: remember how badly Spexxvet came off in a contest like this one.[/ad hominem]
Once again, for (or to isolate) those who avoid understanding: [ad hominem]if you're so very intelligent, why aren't you talking smarter?[/ad hominem] Why are you not studying the matter? Afraid of what you'll find in your own soul? I do not fear my subconscious, I'll tell you that much. People with antigun views are very much afraid of what they might do if they permitted themselves arms. If they repress this sufficiently, they have a great deal of trouble understanding it. See "Ragers Against Self-Defense" on JPFO's website for an introduction. (It's a remarkably complete explanation of Spexxvet's demonstrated state of mind wrt private armaments -- he went right down the list.)
Making it easier for criminals and crazies to go a-hunting is not the smart way to do things. The smart way is to make it harder, and strict gun control never makes it harder.
As for knowing your way of thinking, there's only one way that I can't "know approximately jack shit" about it: that's if you never post. I read your posts. I understand the thoughts you write down. I think they are ill founded, and you're going to hear about it, [ad hominem]so don't descend into bitching.[/ad hominem]
My own facts? What nonsense is this? [ad hominem]Simply because you won't cure your own ignorance[/ad hominem] -- which is what I did, and the material I've studied is available also to you -- does not mean I'm wrong. [ad hominem]To insist that your ignorance is somehow superior to my study, which is in effect your whole attitude here, is mere perversity.[/ad hominem] I'm just not stupid enough to insist on believing other than the real, see? There's still plenty of room over here on the side of the angels.
You are in a most regrettable hurry to mistake a will to prevail even under the worst of possibilities with a fearful jumping at shadows. [ad hominem]This is of course a very foolish way of looking at it, and one that the sensible man does not accept.[/ad hominem] It's a martial-arts viewpoint that does not increase paranoia -- quite the contrary. You'd know that had you ever taken any. If you are currently taking something and doubt my words, ask your sensei.
Bloody right I'm judging you -- on the basis of your posts and on your demonstrated thought. I am in the same position to judge you as you are to judge me, on the identical grounds, and my judgemental position is excellent: it is because I too am a moral being. You've got no call to complain -- if you're a moral being. Yet, do I detect a note of complaint?
That you experience at least occasional desire to own a gun is commendable, without qualification. The best people to own guns are the ones with the least desire to slay folks with them. That you do it from mistaking me for some sort of enemy, well, that's unfortunate, but I don't see what I can do to fix it. The people who are most hoplophobic also tend to misidentify potential threats or enemies -- another not-smart behavior. They cannot or will not tell the sheepdogs from the wolves. This incapacity is why I can tell they're not very bright.
Cowhead: just what the hell do you know about it? I challenge you. Back it up or withdraw it.
small words this time:
hyperbole: a exaggeration to make a point. "this book weighs a ton". your statement was an exaggeration to make a point.
hunting: the sport of pursuing game. like animals, for sport or food. people are not game. they're not being pursued for sport or game. it's called murder, something very different.
preserve: an area maintained for a special purpose. these areas are maintained for the special purpose of education. they're called schools.
you're wrong wrong wrong on all accounts. "your own facts" is what you're doing when you just making up definitions for words that for which everybody else already has well established definitions, very different definitions. what's more, you avoid the correct but less provocative less inflammatory more fantastic descriptions. you slipped in this recent post though when you correctly called it murder.
as for knowing my way of thinking, you're still at zero. you still understand nothing about it. your explanation that you "know" because you "understand" what I post falls short, particularly in the "understand" area. a good example of this is your lack of "understanding" the basic, common, accepted definitions of terms like "murder" "school" "hyperbole" "hunting preserve". your repeated misuse of public objectively verifiable concepts like these make me certain you don't understand something much more complex like someone's thinking. I reckon I could post the meaning of the universe in fifty words or less and you'd fail to understand it.
[/ad hominem] it's the understanding you're failing.
I'll give you another free shot though. I strenuously object to lies like yours. I find them objectionable because of the great harm the inflict on the public discourse. This is not a case of calling a spade a spade, this is calling a spade a TERRORIST, a BOOGEYMAN, a ... HUNTER. this wild exaggeration inflames and distracts and perhaps that is your purpose. But it does nothing to help make things better. It helps solve nothing. It is wasteful destructive divisive and distracting. It is like dumping toxic waste on the public commons--hurtful to all and helpful to none. When I see it happening, I resist it. This is the evil I shall not let triumph by doing nothing.
judge away--I'll give them the same low credence I give your free ranging re-definitions of common english words. you call things names that they are not. you call me immoral and grotesque; I am not. you call schools hunting preserves for crazies; they are not. your credibility is approximately zero, and in perfect proportion to the value of your judgment.
As a separate post...
Please, Urbane Guerrilla, stop calling people stupid. Ok? As a favor to me, would you please?
Thanks in advance.
If I am in a building for the purpose of killing people and am the only armed individual, with victims trapped in classrooms... it is a game preserve.
I have hunted on game preserves, that describes them exactly. There is no difference.
If you just don't like the fact that we are talking about humans as the prey, that is something you are going to have to deal with on your own.
It is an accurate description of the situation.
rkz, you have taken one aspect of the debate and stripped away the emotional rhetoric. I find it difficult to disagree with what you've said.
It would generally be understood that people go hunting for the thrill of it. That is to say, to test their skill and thier wits against that of the beast.
People who commit gun crime generally have different motivations than the simple thrill of it even if they're committing mass murder.
Schools are not hunting preserves.
Maybe not, but it sure makes a good spot to kill a bunch of people with little interference or much chance of anyone shooting back, for a period of time.
Hunting preserve may be hyperbole or even exaggeration, but not a lie.
bullshit.
Oh, well of
course, it all makes perfect
sense now! :D
....remember how badly Spexxvet came off in a contest like this one....
It's not suprising that you have this perception, since you are ignorant, close-minded, and advocate violence, you loser.
...(It's a remarkably complete explanation of Spexxvet's demonstrated state of mind wrt private armaments -- he went right down the list.)...
Shoot 'em, up, killer. :shotgun:
I truly hope that someone takes one of your handguns right out of your cowardly hands, butt fucks you in the mouth, and shoots you to death.
butt fucks you in the mouth.
:lol:
Gotta love when you can fit that in somewhere!
It's not suprising that you have this perception, since you are ignorant, close-minded, and advocate violence, you loser.
Shoot 'em, up, killer. :shotgun:
I truly hope that someone takes one of your handguns right out of your cowardly hands, butt fucks you in the mouth, and shoots you to death.
Please show where he advocates violence.
You, however, do so in this post. :whofart:
Please show where he advocates violence.
I know that you espouse that crazy "I have a gun so that there is no violence" bullshit, but the logical conclusion to having a gun is that someone, eventually, will get shot. Civilized people call that "violence".
You, however, do so in this post. :whofart:
Yup. Some people need a good buttfucking in the mouth. I hope UG thanks you real good for sticking up for him - he can't do it himself, you know.
I know that you espouse that crazy "I have a gun so that there is no violence" bullshit, but the logical conclusion to having a gun is that someone, eventually, will get shot.
No, that "logical" conclusion, is not logical. You have poisons in your house, does that mean someone will get poisioned?
No, that "logical" conclusion, is not logical. You have poisons in your house, does that mean someone will get poisioned?
Poison isn't a weapon that you buy to kill someone, as a handgun is.
Another ridiculous statement not based in fact. I have many handguns and not one was purchased to kill someone nor have they.
Oh, and poisons are weapons, sometimes weapons of mass destruction.
I have many handguns and not one was purchased to kill someone nor have they.
.
Of course not, because "guns don't kill people. People kill people." Right? ;)
:bolt:
That's right, sometimes with poison.
Specx, aside from feeling it is ok to rape UG, do you not feel that it is ok to defend oneself or home?
Another ridiculous statement not based in fact. I have many handguns and not one was purchased to kill someone nor have they.
For what ridiculous reason did you buy guns, then, Bruce?
Oh, and poisons are weapons, sometimes weapons of mass destruction.
I'll restate: Poison isn't a weapon that
I buy to kill someone. Poison
may be a weapon that
you buy to kill someone, same as a handgun.
Specx, aside from feeling it is ok to rape UG, do you not feel that it is ok to defend oneself or home?
Aside from insinuating that you won't have to kill someone to defend oneself or home, how can it be rape when UG likes it so much?
we don't have guns in my household now, but we did when i was younger, because they were hunters. so i got use to them.
I think for the most part, poisons in your household are intended for killing bugs or rodents, or maybe cleaning your bathroom...a gun in your household could be for hunting...but a gun purchased for "protection," means it's for shooting someone.
but a gun purchased for "protection," means it's for shooting someone.
Profundity in it's finest hour.
Only if they are, possibly, going to shoot you first.
They can also be for multiple reasons, trap shooting, target practice, enjoyment as an artistic/technical item, as well as protection against animals and humans.
..., as well as protection against animals and humans.
AKA killing
For what ridiculous reason did you buy guns, then, Bruce?
I'll restate: Poison isn't a weapon that I buy to kill someone. Poison may be a weapon that you buy to kill someone, same as a handgun.
Ya know, Spex, I'm getting sick and fucking tired of you telling why I do things. You have no fucking idea why I do anything, so stop it, right fucking now.
I think for the most part, poisons in your household are intended for killing bugs or rodents, or maybe cleaning your bathroom...a gun in your household could be for hunting...but a gun purchased for "protection," means it's for shooting someone.
No, with people, for protection most often means for dissuasion without firing a shot.
Animals however, although usually the noise of the first shot will scare them off, if it doesn't they are deadly serious and have to be shot and often killed.
Profundity in it's finest hour.
I can't tell if you're being sarcastic--are you agreeing with me, or trying to insult me again? I'd think you, out of everybody here, would agree with my little reflection the most.
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
Anti-gun Rep. John Dingell (D-MI) continues his assault on American gun owners.
Dingell has been tapped by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to broker a compromise with Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) on H.R. 297, a gun control bill being pushed in the wake of the Virginia Tech shooting.
The bill provides about $1 billion to the states to "provide the National Instant Criminal Background Check System [NICS] with all records concerning persons who are prohibited from possessing or receiving a firearm... regardless of the elapsed time since the disqualifying event."
As GOA has pointed out in previous alerts, this could lead to millions more Americans being included in the FBI's database of prohibited persons.
Dingell, being a former NRA board member, is in a unique position in the Congress on Second Amendment issues. Despite the fact that he betrayed gun owners by supporting the Clinton semi-auto ban, he is still viewed on the Hill as one of the few pro-gun Democrats.
So his support gives the bill the appearance of having the support of gun owners, when actually it is the most massive expansion of gun control in over a decade.
McCarthy, of course, is the most notorious anti-gunner in the Congress. Her sitting down with Dingell to decide the fate of our gun rights is like two foxes deciding how to best guard the henhouse.
To make matters worse, Dingell is in negotiations with the NRA to come up with a 'compromise' as quickly as possible.
The NRA itself told Newsweek in an exclusive interview on April 24 that the group "backs [the] proposed new legislation" in the House.
Newsweek reported, "The NRA's position puts the group at odds with the Gun Owners of America, which has already launched a public campaign to block the legislation that the NRA supports, warning that the proposal could 'block millions of additional, honest gun owners from buying firearms.'"
Politicians always seek to pass laws in the aftermath of a tragedy, as if one more law will stop evil people from doing evil deeds.
Instead of passing more and more laws that ultimately will snuff out our liberty, we should consider repealing gun control laws that prevent citizens from defending themselves when a madman strikes.
CONTACT INFORMATION: You can visit the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center at
http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm to send your Representative the pre-written e-mail message below. And, you can call your Representative at 202-225-3121 or toll-free at 1-877-762-8762.
Ya know, Spex, I'm getting sick and fucking tired of you telling why I do things. You have no fucking idea why I do anything, so stop it, right fucking now.
Main Entry: 1may
Function: verbal auxiliary
... used to indicate possibility or probability <you may be right> <things you may need> -- sometimes used interchangeably with can <one of those slipups that may happen from time to time -- Jessica Mitford> -- sometimes used where might would be expected <you may think from a little distance that the country was solid woods -- Robert Frost>
Main Entry: 1tell
4 a : to give information to : INFORM <tell us about your job> b : to assure emphatically <they did not do it, I tell you>
Ya know, Bruce, I'm getting sick and fucking tired of you not understanding the English language. You have no fucking idea how to understand plain English, so get a clue, right fucking now.:right:
Should I interpret your saying I have poisons in my house that can be used to kill people to be TELLING me that I'm going to poison someone?
Oh, and way to avoid answering the fucking question.
No you dumb motherfucker, I don't presume to know why you do anything, and you have no clairvoyance either.
I pointed out, you having the means(poision) to kill somebody in your house doesn't mean you intend on doing that. Even though you're making that very same presumption of others, which is asinine. It's like me saying you bought a dog to rip peoples throats out.
When you do that shit, it's more than being presumptuous, it's flat out lies.
For what ridiculous reason did you buy guns, then, Bruce?
I'll restate: Poison isn't a weapon that I buy to kill someone. Poison may be a weapon that you buy to kill someone, same as a handgun.
Bruce, why waste your time on a useless idiot who claims your reasons for owning something are ridiculous? Your reasons for owning a gun are irrelevant as long as you don't use them to violate the person, property, or rights of non-consenting others. You can buy a gun to prop up a table leg and it's none of his fucking business.
Neither he, nor the combined population of the planet earth minus you has any say in whether or not you may or may not own a gun. It's your RIGHT to own any number of any type of gun you want without limits and the same is true of the amount and type of ammunition you want. Not one person, or a group of people regardless of their number
(even if they call themselves "government") has any legitimate authority over whether or not you own a million guns with a billion rounds of armor piercing ammunition without any serial numbers or registration of those guns.
100% of gun control laws are a violation of the Constitution and of our INDIVIDUAL natural, undeniable, self-evident, immutable, and inalienable rights.
Anyone who says otherwise is an idiot, a liar, or an asshole... or all of the above.
Should I interpret your saying I have poisons in my house that can be used to kill people to be TELLING me that I'm going to poison someone?
The
same person that says...
AKA killing
LOL!!!! So awesome! :p
Which is only
one of the reasons I gave for ownership. You choose to obsess over it for your own reasons.
If that is all you see, you obviously don't feel that people have a right to defend themselves in any circumstance, again, don't buy one.
I think some of the above posts are unacceptable.
I thought this forum was all about mutual respect?
Why can't people just back off if they feel the need to be so virulently abusive?
If you don't like it don't read it. You don't determine acceptability.
Bruce, why waste your time on a useless idiot who claims your reasons for owning something are ridiculous?
Because he crossed the line. He's not not arguing his position against handguns, he's making personal accusations, of me buying guns with the intent of killing people. That lie is unacceptable and can't go unanswered.
Whatever you say Bruce. I was just voicing my opinion. It's dissappointing to see normally reasonable adults speak to each other in that manner.
That's why Cloud started all those threads for you.
I don't think she started any threads for me Bruce.
Have a nice day.
Because he crossed the line. He's not not arguing his position against handguns, he's making personal accusations, of me buying guns with the intent of killing people. That lie is unacceptable and can't go unanswered.
Really? If someone forced their way into your house and threatened you with a baseball bat, what would you do? Don't avoid the question, this time. You're making accusations, answer the question.
Do bear in mind that Spexxvet has already demonstrated that this is a subject on which he cannot think rationally. This has been pointed out by me, by wolf, and perhaps xoxoBruce (implicitly if not explicitly). We beat Spexx into the ground.
The rational way is not to delegitimize armed self-defense. It's even less rational once you see in all its horror just what that opens the way for. (My least-favorite Cellar-Dweller leans heavily towards delegitimizing it too, and how very like him.)
And a ball bat is a potentially lethal weapon. Invading your dwelling plus offering you lethal violence -- every law in the land says you can do anything up to lethal force to stop him. The law only allows you to stop him, but he's the one who determines how much stopping is required. It would be bad for the rest of town to let him run, for one consideration.
The law prefers a proportionality of force to the situation, if at all available. Lethal possibility on one side justifies lethal force on the other. We are however, talking about only three percent of armed self-defense cases.
Well, the thing is, the people in this argument have all stated their case on numerous occasions and there's been no concensus.
I just wonder why it has to degenerate into something so base.
Why can't people just stop arguing if there's nothing new to present?
As a separate post...
Please, Urbane Guerrilla, stop calling people stupid. Ok? As a favor to me, would you please?
Thanks in advance.
Sorry, V, but whenever you speak stupidly -- assuming I catch you at it -- I'll call you on your suboptimum thinking. It is hardly ad-hominem to point out errors. In a forum, stupid is as stupid speaks.
You are in effect asking me, through all your arguments, such as they are, to leave you in your previous condition of ignorance.
Knowledge is preferable to ignorance, is it not?
Leaving you in your previous condition of unknowingness would hardly be the action of a friend, now would it?
Is insisting upon ignorance the action of an intelligent adult human being?
You seem to have a little problem with me trying to bring a sort of balance here: I know something, and you don't. I do not understand your refusal to know better than once you did. Knowing better worked for me. I used to be ignorant too.
You are free to do the sort of thinking you do precisely because the people who think as I do are the ones standing watch -- in camouflage uniforms, in blue shirts behind badges, and in plain clothes.
I truly hope that someone takes one of your handguns right out of your cowardly hands, butt fucks you in the mouth, and shoots you to death.
Heinlein remarked of pacifists, somewhere in
The Notebooks of Lazarus Long [
Time Enough For Love] that their pacifism only stretches so far. When it snaps, he said, "they hoist the Jolly Roger." This is a textbook illustration.
Thanks for demonstrating how the hoplophobes crack, and show the viciousness within, to say nothing of logistical or anatomical incoherence.
Your kind of pacifism is not a well-advised, balanced path of life.
I've walked a better road in my life. It's not too late for you. Repent.
Really? If someone forced their way into your house and threatened you with a baseball bat, what would you do? Don't avoid the question, this time. You're making accusations, answer the question.
If someone broke in your house and threatened to kill you with a baseball bat, wouldn't you use any means at your disposal to defend yourself? Of course you would.
Does that mean you bought that knife, lamp, golf club, crowbar, to kill someone? No, that's a stupid assumption.
If your dog attacks and rips the intruders throat out, does that mean you bought the dog to kill people? No, that's a stupid assumption.
Does that mean if I shoot that same attacker, I bought that gun to kill someone? No, that's a stupid assumption.
Well, the thing is, the people in this argument have all stated their case on numerous occasions and there's been no concensus.
I just wonder why it has to degenerate into something so base.
Why can't people just stop arguing if there's nothing new to present?
If you feel that is true, then why in hell are you reading this thread, other to scold people. Go read Clouds threads.
A gun is not purchased to kill someone. [COLOR="silver"](unless, of course, it is, in the case of a criminal or whatever... but thats another deal altogether)[/COLOR]
A gun IS purchased expressly to defend yourself with, up to and including using it to kill.
This is a semantics issue, I think.
Too, simplistic, there are more reasons to buy a gun than just self defense.
Well duh, but I mean, that's the most important reason... right?
Yes, maybe even primary for some people, just not exclusive.
If you feel that is true, then why in hell are you reading this thread, other to scold people. Go read Clouds threads.
I was reading this thread to see if there had been anything new said on the subject which hadn't been discussed before.
Stop being such a child Bruce.
If someone broke in your house and threatened to kill you with a baseball bat, wouldn't you use any means at your disposal to defend yourself? Of course you would.
Does that mean you bought that knife, lamp, golf club, crowbar, to kill someone? No, that's a stupid assumption.
If your dog attacks and rips the intruders throat out, does that mean you bought the dog to kill people? No, that's a stupid assumption.
Does that mean if I shoot that same attacker, I bought that gun to kill someone? No, that's a stupid assumption.
Answer the question.
For what ridiculous reason did you buy guns, then, Bruce?
Too, simplistic, there are more reasons to buy a gun than just self defense.
Answer the question.
A gun is not purchased to kill someone. [COLOR="silver"](unless, of course, it is, in the case of a criminal or whatever... but thats another deal altogether)[/COLOR]
A gun IS purchased expressly to defend yourself with, up to and including using it to kill.
This is a semantics issue, I think.
Exactly. If someone buys a gun to defend themselves, they intend to use lethal force to defend themselves. If the circumstances arise, they intend to kill someone. They may even hope that they never have to, but just owning a gun indicates their intent.
Because he crossed the line. He's not not arguing his position against handguns, he's making personal accusations, of me buying guns with the intent of killing people. That lie is unacceptable and can't go unanswered.
You may be angry because my presumption is incorrect. You may be angry because my presumption is correct, and you don't like being read so easily. You may be angry just at my presumption. But to say I'm lying is just plain wrong.
BTW, do I have an innate right to presume?;)
You can presume all you want, but when you start telling lies, the gloves come off.
I live a couple miles from where you work. If you were really worried about my guns and how I use them, you wouldn't be talking shit.
It's obvious you're making up ridiculous claims, to support your opinion, because it won't stand on it's merits nor convince rational people.
Oh, and I did answer the question.
I was reading this thread to see if there had been anything new said on the subject which hadn't been discussed before.
Stop being such a child Bruce.
Stop being such a cunt.
Lastly, this is a forum for adults, and we assume the content here is likely to be obscene or possibly offensive. All messages express the views of the people who wrote them.
Exactly. If someone buys a gun to defend themselves, they intend to use lethal force to defend themselves. If the circumstances arise, they intend to kill someone. They may even hope that they never have to, but just owning a gun indicates their intent.
That's bullshit. You're assuming someone that buys a gun, strictly for self defense, is willing to kill someone. You have no way of knowing what their intentions are, how far they are willing to take a confrontation, whether they will even load that gun.
You're talking bullshit because, you just don't know and claiming you do is a lie.
Exactly. If someone buys a gun to defend themselves, they intend to use lethal force to defend themselves. If the circumstances arise, they intend to kill someone. They may even hope that they never have to, but just owning a gun indicates their intent.
I would agree with that. I would kill the first of you fucks who tried to rob me or my family or any other scumbag who came through the door. And thank God our state now has a law the lets me shoot your ass if you try to steal my car as well. :eek:
You can presume all you want, but when you start telling lies, the gloves come off.
I didn't lie, you dumb motherfucker
...
Oh, and I did answer the question.
Liar.
The fuck I didn't, I just didn't give you the answer you could twist into your stupid, illogical, claims. So your not worried about my guns after all, you're just bullshit, you lying cocksucker.
UG was right (you don't know how much it pains me to say that), you're so fucked up you don't even understand what you're saying. What a waste.
The fuck I didn't, I just didn't give you the answer you could twist into your stupid, illogical, claims. So your not worried about my guns after all, you're just bullshit, you lying cocksucker.
UG was right (you don't know how much it pains me to say that), you're so fucked up you don't even understand what you're saying. What a waste.
If someone broke in [COLOR="Red"]your[/COLOR] house and threatened to kill you with a baseball bat, wouldn't you use any means at your disposal to defend [COLOR="Red"]yourself[/COLOR][SIZE="6"]?[/SIZE] Of course [COLOR="Red"]you[/COLOR] would.
Does that mean you bought that knife, lamp, golf club, crowbar, to kill someone[SIZE="6"]?[/SIZE] No, that's a stupid assumption.
If your dog attacks and rips the intruders throat out, does that mean you bought the dog to kill people[SIZE="6"]?[/SIZE] No, that's a stupid assumption.
Does that mean if I shoot that same attacker, I bought that gun to kill someone[SIZE="6"]?[/SIZE] No, that's a stupid assumption.
That doesn't look like an answer - it looks like a bunch of questions with some comments. Complete this statement "if someone forced their way inot my house and threatened me with a baseball bat, I would..."
[COLOR="Red"]Don't presume to tell me my intentions, lying moron.[/COLOR]I doesn't look like an answer because your so busy trying to support your lies you can't read for comprehension.
None of my handguns were bought for self defense.
If you broke in my house, and tried to kill me me a baseball bat, I'd cut you in half with a 12 gage shotgun, dumb fuck.
I doesn't look like an answer because your so busy trying to support your lies you can't read for comprehension.
None of my handguns were bought for self defense.
If you broke in my house, and tried to kill me me a baseball bat, I'd cut you in half with a 12 gage shotgun, dumb fuck.
WHO'd a thunk it!;)
UG was right (you don't know how much it pains me to say that). . .
Comes easier with time and experience -- assuming, of course, that I do my part to stay on good grounds.
Though really, xoB, having rassled with you for a while on this and that, I do respect you: you're not stupid, you're not warped, and you make an intelligent and worthy opponent in those instances when we oppose. (Then afterwards I suppose we can break out the bran muffin cupcakes. ;) With sprinkles.)
There are other such Cellar Dwellars who have one way or another earned respect: richlevy, and BigV, when the subject is NOT firearms and the man. You guys seem to agree a lot among yourselves, and seem to make up something of a group.
And of course there are the ones I've just plain liked anyway, wolf, LabRat, and Aliantha among these. While I haven't much respect for Ibram's attempts to take me down, Ibram's own self seems not bad at all. Pierce I eye with suspicion. Youthful-leftist BS from either of these is something I left behind ever so long ago -- upwards of forty years now. So I don't have time for it.
Exactly. If someone buys a gun to defend themselves, they intend to use lethal force to defend themselves. If the circumstances arise, they intend to kill someone. They may even hope that they never have to, but just owning a gun indicates their intent.
May hope? Hell, they do. I've been up against that kind of situation once, and it feels
awful. But it doesn't feel awfuller than being assaulted or murdered, now does it? But it's no wonder people throw up afterwards.
If owning indicates anything, it indicates preparation, and a will to prevail regardless of the level of violence an attacker may bring. This is simply the martial-arts self-defense viewpoint, and the resisting of evil so that evil simply can no longer act is a moral action.
Pierce I eye with suspicion. Youthful-leftist BS from either of these is something I left behind ever so long ago -- upwards of forty years now. So I don't have time for it.
I see the current way of running things as a trial that has proven some points and left us with more information on how to progress with an even better style of government and economics. I don't think there is a perfect system but the ones we have right now are flawed and need to be changed.
Also, how does age have anything to do with views? I know people that are much older than me that still shares some of the same views as me. Just because you changed from a more liberal phase that is probably much differently from mine doesn’t mean you are right with experience, social settings can change anyone’s views dramatically in any direction. Views are also very subjective.
P.S. – My views are usually much different than my peers so don’t bring it up. I actually never had a close friend that even closely resembled my modern views until a month ago.
I doesn't look like an answer because your so busy trying to support your lies you can't read for comprehension.
None of my handguns were bought for self defense.
If you broke in my house, and tried to kill me me a baseball bat, I'd cut you in half with a 12 gage shotgun, dumb fuck.
I rest my case.
Eh? Your whole point is that Bruce would defend himself if attacked? :confused:
People own guns for alot of reasons. One reason is just because they can.
I don't own a gun because I couldn't hit the broad side of a barn.
But I would like a little pistol in my boot if it were all about asthetics and I may just do that one of these days. I doubt a pea shooter would do much damage so I don't think it would be about self defense so much.
Really? If someone forced their way into your house and threatened you with a baseball bat, what would you do? Don't avoid the question, this time. You're making accusations, answer the question.
If someone forced their way into my home and threatened any member of my family, I'd exercise my right to defend my life, property, and family and I'd shoot the motherfucker in DEFENSE. Depending on the situation, it may be a shot to kill or a shot to wound. I'd use whatever level of force I personally deemed appropriate up to and including deadly force.
That's the part morons like you don't get. You make no distinction between killing in defense, and killing to attack. Not one person in the entire recorded history of mankind has ever been killed by a gun. There have been plenty of people killed by other people who were using guns.
A gun is an inanimate object and we have a RIGHT to own any weapon we obtain honestly without any government oversight, permission, or limitations. No person or group of people regardless of their number has any authority or right to prevent another from owning any weapons they choose.
If someone forced their way into my home and threatened any member of my family, I'd exercise my right to defend my life, property, and family and I'd shoot the motherfucker in DEFENSE. Depending on the situation, it may be a shot to kill or a shot to wound. I'd use whatever level of force I personally deemed appropriate up to and including deadly force.
That's the part morons like you don't get. You make no distinction between killing in defense, and killing to attack. Not one person in the entire recorded history of mankind has ever been killed by a gun. There have been plenty of people killed by other people who were using guns.
A gun is an inanimate object and we have a RIGHT to own any weapon we obtain honestly without any government oversight, permission, or limitations. No person or group of people regardless of their number has any authority or right to prevent another from owning any weapons they choose.
You are wasting your time on this one Radar. I don't think he will ever get it.:neutral: Criminals need victims, we will never be one.
Exactly. If someone buys a gun to defend themselves, they intend to use lethal force to defend themselves. If the circumstances arise, they intend to kill someone. They may even hope that they never have to, but just owning a gun indicates their intent.
If someone buys a gun to defend themselves, they hope to have the force needed to do it. This does NOT mean they are buying a gun to kill people. In nearly all cases, merely showing the attacker a weapon is enough of a deterrent to get them to leave. Owning a gun does not indicate an intent to kill and only an idiot would claim such.
I have a question, Radar...
With all your absolutist spiels about rights and how nobody can or cant tell you to do something...
Let's say I'm your next-door neighbor. We're on really good terms, as good neighbors should be, and everything's fine. Then one day you exercise your right as a human being to own arms and buy an RPG launcher (or something of the same level, you get what I'm saying) that you don't really need, but that you simply want to have. I dont like this much; the very idea of a weapon that could easily blow up a car or even house sitting in the garage next door is just downright unsettling. I talk to the rest of the neighbors on the street and they kinda agree with me. So I knock on your door and ask nicely if you could kinda, if its not too much trouble, get rid of the weapon. What do you do? Defy the neighborhood and sit on your porch with it loaded and ready for any opposition, in the face of everything just for the sake of it, or, to assuage the fears of your worried friends and neighbors, sell it?
That's what society is. Sometimes we have to make sacrifices, put limits on ourselves, about what we do. Thats why some limits on gun ownership are necessary, for the mentally ill or incompetent, criminals, etc, and reasonable limits imposed on what's simply too powerful or too dangerous for personal ownership.
The only question is where to draw the line.
[COLOR="Silver"]
(since I know all you people are downright CRAZY about gun threads (i swear these threads set you off worse than a matador to a bull) and all, keep in mind that I'm PRO-gun rights, dont flip out at ME for this - i'm just sayin', you know)[/COLOR]
I rest my case.
You have no case, fool.
I have a question, Radar...
With all your absolutist spiels about rights and how nobody can or cant tell you to do something...
Let's say I'm your next-door neighbor. We're on really good terms, as good neighbors should be, and everything's fine. Then one day you exercise your right as a human being to own arms and buy an RPG launcher (or something of the same level, you get what I'm saying) that you don't really need, but that you simply want to have. I dont like this much; the very idea of a weapon that could easily blow up a car or even house sitting in the garage next door is just downright unsettling. I talk to the rest of the neighbors on the street and they kinda agree with me. So I knock on your door and ask nicely if you could kinda, if its not too much trouble, get rid of the weapon. What do you do? Defy the neighborhood and sit on your porch with it loaded and ready for any opposition, in the face of everything just for the sake of it, or, to assuage the fears of your worried friends and neighbors, sell it?
That's what society is. Sometimes we have to make sacrifices, put limits on ourselves, about what we do. Thats why some limits on gun ownership are necessary, for the mentally ill or incompetent, criminals, etc, and reasonable limits imposed on what's simply too powerful or too dangerous for personal ownership.
The only question is where to draw the line.
[COLOR="Silver"]
(since I know all you people are downright CRAZY about gun threads (i swear these threads set you off worse than a matador to a bull) and all, keep in mind that I'm PRO-gun rights, dont flip out at ME for this - i'm just sayin', you know)[/COLOR]
If the neighbors asked me very nicely, I might consider it. But in the end, it is my choice alone, and my neighbors have no say in whether or not I keep the weapon. I don't believe any limitations on guns is reasonable. In fact when people get out of prison (even if they've used a gun in a crime), they should be able to own guns again. If they pose a danger, they should not be released.
You, and my neighbors, could choose to shun me, and never do business with me, and make my life inconvenient enough (without violating my rights) that I might want to move.
You have no case, fool.
He's saying, "I've proven nothing, and I can live with that"
How could he prove anything, when he can't even come up with a credible theory.
Intelligent people understand, and know I'm right. You can keep going on and on and on, you won't make any more sense.
Intelligent people understand, and know you're and idiot that doesn't have a clue.
I don't know what happened when you had your little breakdown, or whatever, but you've been a dick ever since you came back. Just stop.
But in the end, it is my choice alone, and my neighbors have no say in whether or not I keep the weapon. I don't believe any limitations on guns is reasonable.
Well again we go up against it: under the Constitution, who decides the definition of the word "arms" in the 2nd amendment?
My rights have nothing to do with the Constitution. My rights don't come from the government. I was BORN with the right to own any number of any kind of gun I want without any government oversight or permission.
The Constitution merely protects the rights we're born with and even if the 2nd amendment were stricken from the Constitution entirely, I'd still have that right.
Intelligent people understand, and know I'm right. You can keep going on and on and on, you won't make any more sense.
What would you know about intelligent people other than how to bother us with annoying drivel?
My rights have nothing to do with the Constitution. My rights don't come from the government. I was BORN with the right to own any number of any kind of gun I want without any government oversight or permission.
Any type of gun, or any type of weapon? Nukes? Bioweapons?
I have a question, Radar...
With all your absolutist spiels about rights and how nobody can or cant tell you to do something...
Let's say I'm your next-door neighbor. We're on really good terms, as good neighbors should be, and everything's fine. Then one day you exercise your right as a human being to own arms and buy an RPG launcher (or something of the same level, you get what I'm saying) that you don't really need, but that you simply want to have. I dont like this much; the very idea of a weapon that could easily blow up a car or even house sitting in the garage next door is just downright unsettling. I talk to the rest of the neighbors on the street and they kinda agree with me. So I knock on your door and ask nicely if you could kinda, if its not too much trouble, get rid of the weapon. What do you do? Defy the neighborhood and sit on your porch with it loaded and ready for any opposition, in the face of everything just for the sake of it, or, to assuage the fears of your worried friends and neighbors, sell it?
That's what society is. Sometimes we have to make sacrifices, put limits on ourselves, about what we do. Thats why some limits on gun ownership are necessary, for the mentally ill or incompetent, criminals, etc, and reasonable limits imposed on what's simply too powerful or too dangerous for personal ownership.
The only question is where to draw the line.
[COLOR="Silver"]
(since I know all you people are downright CRAZY about gun threads (i swear these threads set you off worse than a matador to a bull) and all, keep in mind that I'm PRO-gun rights, dont flip out at ME for this - i'm just sayin', you know)[/COLOR]
Wrong, that is not what "society" is, that is a pure democracy, which is mob rule.
Franklin described it accurately. "Two lions and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner".
The majority should NEVER be able to remove rights from a minority. Rights, should never be up for a vote.
Many think any kind of fire arm is too "powerful" to own, which is ridiculous.
Every handgun/shotgun I have ever purchased I did so with the intention of never using it to harm anyone.
I hope to never harm anyone in any way.
If I have to protect myself I will and want to be able to if I have to, but hope never to be placed in that position by someone again.
That is not, however, up to me.
OK. Here's a concession. Accepting that normal rational sane people should be able to carry guns legally with all the permits etc, and discounting all the accidents that stem from this as simply accidents just like misspelling and drunk driving and fat people; what is being done about the massive number of people who have illegal guns or own them illegally. Or are trafficking guns to minors or are committing crimes with guns etc?
This is really the crux of the problem if you accept that everyone should have the right to own a gun...isn't it?
Oh and yeah I know I said I wasn't going to talk in gun threads anymore, but I broke that rule already when I wanted bruce and spex to stop fighting, and look where that got me. :(
Anyway, I just wanted to ask that one question - well two actually - without emotion.
I don't know what happened when you had your little breakdown, or whatever, but you've been a dick ever since you came back. Just stop.
I wouldn't have to if you weren't being such an asshole with you stupid illogical claims and lying about me, Fuck you.
Wrong, that is not what "society" is, that is a pure democracy, which is mob rule.
Franklin described it accurately. "Two lions and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner".
The majority should NEVER be able to remove rights from a minority. Rights, should never be up for a vote.
Many think any kind of fire arm is too "powerful" to own, which is ridiculous.
Every handgun/shotgun I have ever purchased I did so with the intention of never using it to harm anyone.
I hope to never harm anyone in any way.
If I have to protect myself I will and want to be able to if I have to, but hope never to be placed in that position by someone again.
That is not, however, up to me.
No, that ISN'T mob rule. They arent coming with torches and pitchforks
telling you to get rid of it; they're coming nicely and asking you to please get rid of it. Theyre
asking, not
telling. To be part of society, you need to make sacrefices. You dont have to make the sacrifice - but if you want to be part of the neighborhood, you might wanna make nice with the neighbors.
If they are asking, and not telling, you don't have to give up anything to be part of society. If they make it conditional, then they are telling.
"IF you give up the guns, THEN we wont be scared of you.
if you want us (or dont mind us) being scared of you, go ahead and keep them."
(note once again that this isn't how I think, only my take on the situation and my take on how some people think)
OK. Here's a concession. Accepting that normal rational sane people should be able to carry guns legally with all the permits etc, and discounting all the accidents that stem from this as simply accidents just like misspelling and drunk driving and fat people; what is being done about the massive number of people who have illegal guns or own them illegally. Or are trafficking guns to minors or are committing crimes with guns etc?
This is really the crux of the problem if you accept that everyone should have the right to own a gun...isn't it?
It seems that the "crux of the problem" is that a lot of people seem to be under the mistaken impression that removing the rights of law abiding citizens will, somehow, inhibit the actions of criminals.
Even worse, they cannot see the magnificent flaw in this logic.
No, that ISN'T mob rule. They arent coming with torches and pitchforks telling you to get rid of it; they're coming nicely and asking you to please get rid of it. Theyre asking, not telling. To be part of society, you need to make sacrefices. You dont have to make the sacrifice - but if you want to be part of the neighborhood, you might wanna make nice with the neighbors.
Oh, ok then, I would just say "no, thank you". Simple enough.
It seems that the "crux of the problem" is that a lot of people seem to be under the mistaken impression that removing the rights of law abiding citizens will, somehow, inhibit the actions of criminals.
Even worse, they cannot see the magnificent flaw in this logic.
Well that wasn't really an answer rkz. I already know what a lot of people seem to think.
I wouldn't have to if you weren't being such an asshole with you stupid illogical claims and lying about me, Fuck you.
If someone broke in your house and threatened to kill you with a baseball bat, wouldn't you use any means at your disposal to defend yourself? Of course you would.
...
Fuck yourself, hypocrite.
I know one thing they can do.
In order to buy a gun you have to pass an instant background check. It is a violation of federal law to attempt to buy a gun if know you are ineligible to own one. Over the years hundreds of thousands of people have been prevented from buying a gun by this system. Guess how many have been prosecuted for violation of this federal law? ZERO.
Well that wasn't really an answer rkz. I already know what a lot of people seem to think.
I answered it earlier, our rights are not up for a vote, I did answer it in the post, law abiding citizens rights are not subject to removal due to the actions of criminals (true also for illegal immigration).
If you want to give up your right to own a firearm, don't buy one.
I know one thing they can do.
In order to buy a gun you have to pass an instant background check. It is a violation of federal law to attempt to buy a gun if know you are ineligible to own one. Over the years hundreds of thousands of people have been prevented from buying a gun by this system. Guess how many have been prosecuted for violation of this federal law? ZERO.
Well that sounds like an excellent proposition. I wonder why people don't do something about it.
I answered it earlier, our rights are not up for a vote, I did answer it in the post, law abiding citizens rights are not subject to removal due to the actions of criminals (true also for illegal immigration).
If you want to give up your right to own a firearm, don't buy one.
rkz, my post wasn't anything about rights. I even conceeded that everyone has the right to own a gun, for the sake of sensible discussion.
I asked for a solution to the problem of illegal gun crimes.
Any type of gun, or any type of weapon? Nukes? Bioweapons?
What part of "any" do you have a hard time comprehending? I have the right to own any weapon as long as I'm not physically harming or endangering others with it. Merely owning a weapon doesn't endanger anyone. If I own nukes, I should be able to prove that they are not leaking radiation onto my neighbors. I should be able to prove that I have any bioweapons stored in such a way that there is no way for the germs to escape and endanger my neighbors.
I should be able to own a tank, a fighter jet, or even a nuclear sub complete with nuclear warheads if I can afford it and don't use them to threaten or endanger others.
Fuck yourself, hypocrite.
Oh Spexxvet, I apologize.
I had no idea you would
not attempt to defend yourself, and your family, by any means possible. My bad.
Shame about your family, but that's you're right to let the guy with the baseball bat kill them one at a time by smashing their heads to pulp, while you maintain your moral high ground.
Yes sir, you'll show him. Good for you.
The fact of the matter is gun control laws cost human lives and do nothing to prevent crime. Gun control laws have never been about guns. They've been about control...controlling the population and keeping them from being able to mount an effective defense from government tyranny.
Gun control laws worked very well for the Nazi party. They knew exactly which houses to go to in order to disarm people so they would be more easily victimized.
rkz, my post wasn't anything about rights. I even conceeded that everyone has the right to own a gun, for the sake of sensible discussion.
I asked for a solution to the problem of illegal gun crimes.
First, I really hope you are not trying to separate the right to own a gun from actually owning one.
Second, I am not a cop, but I do believe decriminalizing drugs will reduce gun crime by at least half, if not two-thirds.
Controlling our borders sensibly will reduce illegal guns entering our country by another significant amount.
The law enforcement freed-up by decriminalizing drugs can then be put to good use actually fighting
REAL crime. Government corruption along with those trying to purchase and move guns illegally perhaps?
Well if you decriminalize drugs you've just got a whole different argument to sort out haven't you?
I'm not trying to separate anyones rights from anything. I just asked a question.
Well if you decriminalize drugs you've just got a whole different argument to sort out haven't you?
I don't think so.
Then again, I don't believe in a totalitarian/nanny government.
I'm not trying to separate anyones rights from anything. I just asked a question.
It was a leading question.
It implied that those of us legally owning weapons were, somehow, at fault for those illegally in possession of one.
Nothing could be
farther from the truth.
It was a leading question.
It implied that those of us legally owning weapons were, somehow, at fault for those illegally in possession of one.
Nothing could be farther from the truth.
Nope, not a leading question. Just a plain old ordinary every day question. If you were going to give it any title I'd say it'd be hypothetical because any solution anyone suggests is certainly not likely to be enacted any time in the immediate future.
Please don't turn this into another slanging match.
No sweat, if that is not what you meant and you feel that legal gun owners have no connection to illegal gun activity and you had no intention of implying that, please say so.
That was the first line of the post that began this discussion rkz. Have another look if you don't believe me.
Oh Spexxvet, I apologize.
I had no idea you would not attempt to defend yourself, and your family, by any means possible. My bad.
Shame about your family, but that's you're right to let the guy with the baseball bat kill them one at a time by smashing their heads to pulp, while you maintain your moral high ground.
Yes sir, you'll show him. Good for you.
I accept your apology. Now go shoot somebody, as you intended.
You can't limit the possible futures of what some may do with legally obtained weapons and should not limit the rights of legal gun owners based on how illegal owners behave. That is all.
I have not suggested that anyone should. Get together with Radar and buy some WMD's if you want.
I asked what to do about the illegal aspects. That is all.
I accept your apology. Now go shoot somebody, as you intended.
Nope, it's your family being murdered, I won't interfere with your desire to let them be hamburger.
Oh and yeah I know I said I wasn't going to talk in gun threads anymore, but I broke that rule already when I wanted bruce and spex to stop fighting, and look where that got me. :(
Yep: back in the thread is where it got you. I think that's not a horribly bad result.
Now whether
the more the noisier is entirely a good thing... :confused: Too good a case can be made for it being bad or being good. And I don't think anyone here wants to hijack the thread for a discussion of this minor point.
Having had the logic of his argument demolished, Spexx now is reduced to nasty little ad-hominems based upon a bitter resentment of self defense, which judging by
his little breakdown a few pages back, Spexx is quite incapable of doing. The gun people do not indulge in what Spexx does; our decision to defend requires us to think more maturely and carefully -- and knowledgeably. Spexx's outbursts sound like they came out of a six-year-old. You won't hear that kind of thing out of the gun people.
Who knows. I just decided to try looking at it from a different angle that's all. I guess maybe people find it difficult to understand.
I accept your apology. Now go shoot somebody, as you intended.
The only people I intend to shoot are those who intend to infringe upon my rights
(including my right to own any number of any type of gun or ammo I please without anyone else's permission or oversight), or who physically harm or endanger me, my family, or my property. If that's you, consider yourself shot.
If I shoot, you'll be shot.
Reducing you to the passive voice.:footpyth:
Nope, it's your family being murdered, I won't interfere with your desire to let them be hamburger.
Why do you pretend the point is guns or defense? For the last few pages, the discussion has been about
presumption of intentions. You presumed to know my intentions after having a hissy fit about my presuming to know your intentions. You admitted that you intend to kill someone with the guns you bought. Now, you're trying to spin the issue into my defense of my family, which I never commented on - I merely told you to stop presuming. Please give it up.
No liar, I didn't admit I intend to kill someone with the guns I bought, and that's the fucking point. I said I would use them to keep someone from killing me, but you keep trying to twist the truth to make your illogical point. Everybody but you knows you're wrong and I've a feeling from your lies, you do too.
If I have to, I'll use guns to protect my loved ones.
You use;
What part of "any" do you have a hard time comprehending? I have the right to own any weapon as long as I'm not physically harming or endangering others with it.
I understand what "any" means, but I don't always get the same answer when I ask others what they mean by "any".
Merely owning a weapon doesn't endanger anyone. If I own nukes, I should be able to prove that they are not leaking radiation onto my neighbors. I should be able to prove that I have any bioweapons stored in such a way that there is no way for the germs to escape and endanger my neighbors.
Prove to whom? Do they have the right to make your ownership rights contingent on regular inspections and code compliance? How would they know to make those inspections - should you have to register the weapons with the inspectors in order to own them?
:corn: Keep going everyone, keep going.
This, gay marriage laws, pro-lifers, dress code laws for kids (yes, some towns have them), PMRC, the FCC's bullshit, etc, etc, etc... is all the same bullshit.
Some people believe they are better than others and they should be able to tell their neighbors how to live their life, what they should be able to do and what they should not be able to do, what they should be able to say and what they should not be able to say.
They will swear they do not want one while doing their damnedest to implement an oligarchy, theocracy or other form of oppressive, nanny, government.
This mindset is AFRAID of freedom or it resents anyone who thinks differently than they do. Honestly that is cool, as long as one does nothing about it... but these people try to change legislation to inhibit others from expressing alternate thoughts.
They don't like freedom.
I have said it before.
Freedom means that you must contend with other's ideas and actions as expressions of their freedom, just like you will.
What these people hate more than anything are those who do not agree with them... they cannot handle freedom, because freedom is not about them, it is about everyone.
We have seen it in here. People who cannot handle something as simple as someone disagreeing with them. In a free society it is simple, if you don't like a TV program, you don't watch it; if you don't like a radio station, you don't listen to it; if you don't like a certain type of film, don't go and if you don't like guns, you just don't buy one.
I understand what "any" means, but I don't always get the same answer when I ask others what they mean by "any".
Prove to whom? Do they have the right to make your ownership rights contingent on regular inspections and code compliance? How would they know to make those inspections - should you have to register the weapons with the inspectors in order to own them?
You'd have to prove it to your neighbors if they claimed you were endangering them. Actually it goes the other way. They would have to prove you were endangering them in order to take any actions against you. If they made such claims and had enough evidence to get a trial, you'd then have to prove your storage was safe.....or nuke the court.
i'm kind of an outsider on this - but i'm curious - i don't think i read or maybe didn't understand - how would spexxvet protect his family if presented with the situation given of a threatening intruder? i know you all gave examples of "poison & guns" purchasing them without the intent to do harm unless provoked - the same could be said about "swords". we have couple that we purchased as christmas gifts - only because my son thought they were "cool". as stated before we don't have any guns so - what if I used that? not that i would even remember having it. would i just "point & stick" - no pun intended. just wondering.
You'd have to prove it to your neighbors if they claimed you were endangering them. Actually it goes the other way. They would have to prove you were endangering them in order to take any actions against you. If they made such claims and had enough evidence to get a trial, you'd then have to prove your storage was safe.....or nuke the court.
So you
don't have to prove you're handling it properly.
How are they supposed to know whether you're endangering them until it's too late?
?!?!
The Cellar Cookie AI is long fabled in song and story.
So you don't have to prove you're handling it properly.
How are they supposed to know whether you're endangering them until it's too late?
The burden of proof rests squarely on the shoulders of those who are making accusations of impropriety or especially those making accusations of endangerment.
I'd imagine if they started losing hair for no apparent reason and found that there was radiation coming from a house, they'd probably be able to figure it out.
The Cellar Cookie AI is long fabled in song and story.
Yes, I'm pleasantly familiar with the fabled cellar cookie ai. I was dazzled by the synchronicity of this cookie in this thread.
Eh? Your whole point is that Bruce would defend himself if attacked? :confused:
I'm having a hard time following how you drew that conclusion from this thread. Would you take me step by step through your thought process?
The burden of proof rests squarely on the shoulders of those who are making accusations of impropriety or especially those making accusations of endangerment.
I'd imagine if they started losing hair for no apparent reason and found that there was radiation coming from a house, they'd probably be able to figure it out.
Like I said. Too late.
snip~ the same could be said about "swords". we have couple that we purchased as christmas gifts - only because my son thought they were "cool". as stated before we don't have any guns so - what if I used that?
Spex says that's proof positive you bought that sword with intent of stabbing someone.
Spex says that's proof positive you bought that sword with intent of stabbing someone.
First, you hypocritically presume to know my intentions, now you presume to speak for me. Just shut the fuck up, you dumb cocksucker.
I'm certainly free, nay compelled, to spread the gospel of Spex.
Just call me the dickhead's disciple.
This, gay marriage laws, pro-lifers, dress code laws for kids (yes, some towns have them), PMRC, the FCC's bullshit, etc, etc, etc... is all the same bullshit.
Some people believe they are better than others and they should be able to tell their neighbors how to live their life, what they should be able to do and what they should not be able to do, what they should be able to say and what they should not be able to say.
They will swear they do not want one while doing their damnedest to implement an oligarchy, theocracy or other form of oppressive, nanny, government.
This mindset is AFRAID of freedom or it resents anyone who thinks differently than they do. Honestly that is cool, as long as one does nothing about it... but these people try to change legislation to inhibit others from expressing alternate thoughts.
They don't like freedom.
I have said it before.
Freedom means that you must contend with other's ideas and actions as expressions of their freedom, just like you will.
What these people hate more than anything are those who do not agree with them... they cannot handle freedom, because freedom is not about them, it is about everyone.
We have seen it in here. People who cannot handle something as simple as someone disagreeing with them. In a free society it is simple, if you don't like a TV program, you don't watch it; if you don't like a radio station, you don't listen to it; if you don't like a certain type of film, don't go and if you don't like guns, you just don't buy one.
I agree with some of this and disagree with others.
First of all, it is stupid for people to think they know how to control other people's lives or tell people how to live "the right way", because there isn't a single way. That goes for both ways. Some societies can function perfectly with guns and some can function perfectly without guns.
Yes, a lot of talk on gun control is about controlling other people but a lot of it is also safety. We should be able to protect yourself but you can't just own something because you can. I can't own a nuke because 50 million other lives should not be put in danger because I am on a power trip and are pathetically attempting to justify it by saying I should be able to own it because I can.
I am very strongly against total gun control but there are limits. You have every right (as much as I hate saying someone has rights) to protect yourself but there is a limit. Owning a rocket launcher has nothing to do with protection unless you are planning on protecting yourself against an armored vehicle which is ludicrous. You don't need an automatic weapon to protect yourself, you just need a pistol or a rifle and a few good shots.
When it comes to personal items that are made to kill another animal, you should only use what you need. To go above that level is a display of power, which is just as bad as gun control.
We have seen it in here. People who cannot handle something as simple as someone disagreeing with them. In a free society it is simple, if you don't like a TV program, you don't watch it; if you don't like a radio station, you don't listen to it; if you don't like a certain type of film, don't go and if you don't like guns, you just don't buy one.
You are missing the point. I am not scared of guns and I don't want some banned and regulated because I don't like them. A TV program
can not kill someone, a radio station
can not kill someone, a film
can not kill someone, a gun
can kill someone. Take drunk driving for example. You can say, if you don't like drunk driving then don't do it, but by you drinking and driving you are putting everyone else's life in danger. Some people can handle drinking and driving and some can't, which is why we have a law. Some people can handle guns in a safe manner and some can't, that is why we have regulations.
Driving is not a protected right, gun ownership is. Many things can kill, chainsaws, knives, baseball bats... The regulations you are talking about for guns are already in place. In may area, far too many.
If regular citizens don't need automatic weapons, neither do the police. You made an excellent argument there... however I am getting my class 3 license.
Driving is not a protected right, gun ownership is. Many things can kill, chainsaws, knives, baseball bats... The regulations you are talking about for guns are already in place. In may area, far too many.
Chainsaws, knives, and baseball bats can kill, but just because something has the potential to kill doesn't mean that it has to be banned. If an item proves to be used in many killings whether intentional or unintentional, looking into regulations and banning may be necessary for that particular society to function more efficiently. If only one person died from drunk driving a year it wouldn't have been banned even if it posed the same threat to other drivers. If there was only one gun death a year, there would be no talk about it.
Intentions also have a part in it. Chainsaws, knives, and baseball bats are made for other purposes other than killing.
I said "made for".
Chainsaws were made to cut down trees.
Knives were made to cut food, branches, etc.
Baseball bats were made to hit baseballs.
Cars were made for transporation.
Guns were made to kill.
If a gun were made that could do everything it can currently do other than killing, would that be an improvement?
The answer is yes for chainsaws, knives, baseball bats, and cars.
I said "made for".
Chainsaws were made to cut down trees.
Knives were made to cut food, branches, etc.
Baseball bats were made to hit baseballs.
Cars were made for transporation.
Guns were made to kill.
I have seen and owned many guns that were made solely for the purpose of:
art
being a collectible item
target shooting, both competitive and hobby
skeet shooting
cross country skiing completions
and others
You have no idea of what you speak.
If I promise, cross my heart, to sell, destroy any weapons that I might have, will it stop this horse shit?
Damn. I can't believe folks let kids jack them up. Take a break!
I said "made for".
Chainsaws were made to cut down trees.
Knives were made to cut food, branches, etc.
Baseball bats were made to hit baseballs.
Cars were made for transporation.
Guns were made to kill.
Guns are made for lots of things and not all of them are killing. In fact killing isn't even the main reason guns are made. Those who make claims to the contrary are only displaying their own personal bias and complete ignorance in the matter.
The knife (and in fact all sharp blades) were made for both killing (hunting) and for food preparation. The first knives were made from sharp rocks. Only later were blades used for other things like cutting down trees. This is where the chainsaw came from.
The baseball bat is a modern version of the club which also goes back to caveman days and was also used for the killing of animals, and other cavemen.
Cars were meant for transportation, but like the knife, and the bat, and the gun, it can be made into a weapon. There is no inanimate object that is inherently made for killing. Nuclear weapons weren't even made for killing. They were made for defending, and for letting others know they shouldn't attack us. Nuclear weapons, guns, and all weapons have a main purpose and that purpose is to PREVENT killing by giving us a means to defend ourselves and hopefully scare off would-be attackers.
Actually no, the Nuke was pretty specifically made just to kill and end WWII, and later ADAPTED to use as deterrent.
Guns are made to make money, just like everything else. If there were no profit in it, the only guns would be homemade ones. This may not be a terribly useful thought, but it's another tangent for those grasping at straws to keep this thread going....
here's another.
The constitution gives right to bear arms/bare arms/whatever. Would it be unconstitutional to insist that everyone had a gun? Is there a right to be unarmed? Would gun crime be reduced if everyone were armed?
Would gun crime be reduced if everyone were armed?
Uh oh, we've already been down that bumpy, dead-end road. Or maybe it was more of a cul-de-sac, or roundabout.
I have seen and owned many guns that were made solely for the purpose of:
art
being a collectible item
target shooting, both competitive and hobby
skeet shooting
cross country skiing completions
and others
You have no idea of what you speak.
I have no idea what I speak? Maybe you should try to understand what I say before you rant on something I am not talking about.
I know guns can be used for other purposes, but their
main purpose is to kill. In modern day society, the chainsaw's, knife's, and baseball bat's
main purpose is not to kill, but for some other reason.
Uh oh, we've already been down that bumpy, dead-end road. Or maybe it was more of a cul-de-sac, or roundabout.
:D
OK let's try the kindergarten approach......
next one to post is a big fat bottom burp :D
Whoops, that's me! I had too much fiber today. :o
I have no idea what I speak? . . .
I know guns can be used for other purposes, but their main purpose is to kill. In modern day society, the chainsaw's, knife's, and baseball bat's main purpose is not to kill, but for some other reason.
I can tell right now where your difficulty lies: you're denying that it is possible to kill
rightly, in defense of self or other. That something is lethal, whether gun, sword, or big wet rock, merely suits it to the task, however onerous and troublesome that task may be. But then, it's definitely troublesome to get murdered. And one must never deny that we've the right to self-defense by any means whatsoever -- for to try and put a lid on self-defense only opens up the way for crimes not only by evilly disposed individuals -- as in England-- but by evilly-disposed states like Nazi Germany and the People's Democratic Republic of Kampuchea. Such states present a very large problem, and both their flourishing and their ending are immensely destructive. Germany was left a pile of broken brick, Pol Pot's Kampuchea a ghost town.
In a good many countries, a highly-motivated, well-organized sociopath can go very far -- particularly in countries that are not democracies. The problem with such places is that a sociopathic head of state ends up heading up a sociopathic state. Then you get Amin's Uganda and Saddam's Iraq.
I say humanity does not have to put up with such monsters, and should uniformly hunt them down and kill them off, but I see I digress from the focus of the thread. Nonetheless, there is a simple and clear continuity between what begins this post and where it ends.
The constitution gives right to bear arms/bare arms/whatever.
Actually, it doesn't "give" the right; it acknowledges that the right exists already, inhering in being a human.
Would it be unconstitutional to insist that everyone had a gun? Is there a right to be unarmed?
Yeah, but unarmed is also imprudent, assuming (and one is so very often safe in so assuming) the possessor is sound of mind. One can bring to mind many, well, unfortunate uses of the First Amendment right of free speech here in this Cellar -- some have shown the rest of us that they hold to beliefs that turn them into right bastards.
Would gun crime be reduced if everyone were armed?
The most careful and largest study says yes. John Lott,
More Guns, Less Crime -- very illuminating.
Guns are made for lots of things and not all of them are killing. ...
:turd: :bs:
If I promise, cross my heart, to sell, destroy any weapons that I might have, will it stop this horse shit?
Damn. I can't believe folks let kids jack them up. Take a break!
I agree! Why can't these pro-gunners just cut it out?
Bang! There. Now I don't have to answer you.
I heard on the news the other night a kid (9 years old?) was caught in gang crossfire as he was playing outside, riding his bike. He was killed.
If that 9 year old had his own gun this never would have happened.:right:
Gang members report the gun was not meant for killing; they were going to use it to stir a big pot of beef stew and it just went off. ;)
Cool... I have not seen a post that ignorant in ages.
He means he doesn't appreciate my sense of humor and irony. ;) Oh, and he doesn't agree.
Cool... I have not seen a post that ignorant in ages.
What - you don't see your own posts? :eek:
Bang! There. Now I don't have to answer you.
Hey all you gunners, should pelican be allowed to own a gun? Would that be responsible gun ownership?
Have pelican fill out this 4473, and we'll see where it goes from there.
Huh. I happen to know that this particular pelican won't pass the background check. He's an illegal immigrant.
Now. why can't we all just say Some People Like Guns and Some People Don't Like Guns? That's one way to get all you crazy Americans to settle down. Just Be Nice to one another and it'll all come out in the wash.
Just call me the
:angel: with a :rattat:
(actually, I don't have a gun. I didn't pass the background check!)
Guns are made to make money, just like everything else. If there were no profit in it, the only guns would be homemade ones. This may not be a terribly useful thought, but it's another tangent for those grasping at straws to keep this thread going....
here's another.
The constitution gives right to bear arms/bare arms/whatever. Would it be unconstitutional to insist that everyone had a gun? Is there a right to be unarmed? Would gun crime be reduced if everyone were armed?
The Constitution doesn't "give" us any rights. It protects the rights we're born with. We have a right to defend ourselves using any weapons we choose and we have the right to choose not to own any. We do NOT have the right to disarm others or to limit which weapons they may own; nor do we have the right to use the force of government to do it for us.
:turd: :bs:
You forgot the other part of what I said...
Those who make claims to the contrary are only displaying their own personal bias and complete ignorance in the matter.
Actually in your case, you're not only ignorant, willfully stupid, and pathological liar, you also have the added bonus of being an asshole.
I heard on the news the other night a kid (9 years old?) was caught in gang crossfire as he was playing outside, riding his bike. He was killed.
If that 9 year old had his own gun this never would have happened.:right:
Gang members report the gun was not meant for killing; they were going to use it to stir a big pot of beef stew and it just went off. ;)
Yes, let's all tell the gangs to willingly give up all guns, and then we can live under rainbows with the Easter Bunny and Peter Pan. Oh wait, this is reality and there are bad people in the world.
Only an idiot would try to use the force of government to limit which methods people may use to defend themselves and then use those who violate the law as a reason for attacking the rights of those who don't.
Actually, it doesn't "give" the right; it acknowledges that the right exists already, inhering in being a human.
mybad poor wording
The Constitution doesn't "give" us any rights. It protects the rights we're born with.
:rolleyes:
Replied when I read your post. I don't read the whole thread and then go back to see what I want to reply to.
Make a joke around here or disagree and get labeled an "idiot" and "ignorant." Oh, I forgot where I was. This is the Cellar, after all. :rolleyes:
I have no idea what I speak? Maybe you should try to understand what I say before you rant on something I am not talking about.
I know guns can be used for other purposes, but their main purpose is to kill. In modern day society, the chainsaw's, knife's, and baseball bat's main purpose is not to kill, but for some other reason.
PHE - (sorry if this has already been discussed - I've skipped around in this thread a bit) - Why do police (in the US) carry guns? Their stated mission is, generally, "to serve and protect."
I'm not taking a side in this debate, but just looking for a different perspective.
Sarcasm doesn't convey well in text. Also I apologize. Just getting sick of Spexxvet lying, being an asshole, and attempting to attack my birthright.
My right to own any number of any kind of gun without any permission or oversight on the part of the government is no less or more important than his/her right to breathe.
Just getting sick of Spexxvet lying, being an asshole, and attempting to attack my birthright.
...
I was not an asshole until you started with the insults, asshole. Please cite where I have lied or attacked your birthright. I have done neither, and those who make claims to the contrary are only displaying their own personal bias and complete ignorance in the matter.
I'm not mad. I do try to stay out of gun threads but I just thought that story was an interesting sidebar. I see both sides on this issue; though I don't care for guns, as a woman living alone I wonder sometimes.
And, I'm too sarcastic for my own good. It gets me into trouble even IRL!
... You also have the right to drink alcohol when you've reached the age of majority (18)....
Why do you feel justified in limiting the rights of minors to drink alcohol, but will not tolerate ANY limitations on gun ownership?
Why do you feel justified in limiting the rights of minors to drink alcohol, but will not tolerate ANY limitations on gun ownership?
Are minors allowed to own guns?
Are minors allowed to own guns?
No.
PHE - (sorry if this has already been discussed - I've skipped around in this thread a bit) - Why do police (in the US) carry guns? Their stated mission is, generally, "to serve and protect."
I'm not taking a side in this debate, but just looking for a different perspective.
They carry guns so they can kill if they feel threatened. If they shoot their gun they are told to kill.
I was not an asshole until you started with the insults, asshole. Please cite where I have lied or attacked your birthright. I have done neither, and those who make claims to the contrary are only displaying their own personal bias and complete ignorance in the matter.
You've lied when you claimed I had no right to own a gun, and you've attacked my birthright to own one. You've dishonestly suggested that gun owners are nuts as opposed to those who are truly insane by attacking their rights.
You are presented with facts and you deny them.
Why do you feel justified in limiting the rights of minors to drink alcohol, but will not tolerate ANY limitations on gun ownership?
I don't feel justified in limiting the rights of anyone. Minors have no rights other than basic human rights. They may not make decisions for themselves; only their parents may do it.
If a parent wants to allow a minor to drink alcohol at home, I have no problem with it.
You've lied when you claimed I had no right to own a gun, and you've attacked my birthright to own one.
You're lying. Quote me.
You've dishonestly suggested that gun owners are nuts ...
That would not be dishonesty, it would be my opinion. Quote me.
You are presented with facts and you deny them.
I deny facts? Facts can't be denied. Quote me.
Come on, Radar, back up your attack with some evidence.
Our rights come from natural law, which is part of the laws of nature. Where does gravity come from? It's a constant. It's a universal law of nature and is no more or less immutable than our rights. Rights are undeniable and self-evident and are with us from the moment of birth.
If you're unclear about natural law or rights, I suggest you read up on them because they are the foundation of our laws in America.
And yes, all gun control laws are unconstitutional, and a direct violation of our natural rights.
I don't feel justified in limiting the rights of anyone. Minors have no rights other than basic human rights. They may not make decisions for themselves; only their parents may do it.
If a parent wants to allow a minor to drink alcohol at home, I have no problem with it.
Can you clear up these apparent contradictions?
Are minors allowed to own guns?
No.
Wrong.Can you clear up these apparent contradictions?
I'll answer this one.
No.
Wrong.
You didn't read what was on that link you posted, did you?
Federal law imposes the following restrictions aimed at younger persons:
A person must be 21 years of age to purchase a handgun or handgun ammunition, and 18 years of age to buy a rifle or shotgun or ammunition, from a retail firearm dealer. (GCA, 1968)
A person under age 18 may not possess a handgun or handgun ammunition, and it is illegal for a person to provide a handgun or handgun ammunition to a person under age 18, except for target shooting, hunting, or certain other exempted purposes. (Youth Handgun Safety Act, 1994)
You didn't read what was on that link you posted, did you?
I did. What's all this, then?
State Laws
The following is a list of additional restrictions imposed by individual states. Please note that cities and localities may have their own firearms ordinances in addition to federal and state laws. Some information on some of these laws is published in the BATF`s State Laws and Published Ordinances -- Firearms, available from the U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402 and on the web at www.atf.treas.gov/firearms/statelaws/. However, laws change, so you should always confirm the law with the appropriate federal state and local law enforcement agencies.
Alabama - It is unlawful to deliver a handgun to any person under 18.
Alaska - An unemancipated minor under 16 years of age may not possess a firearm without the consent of parent or guardian.
Arkansas - It is unlawful to sell, give, rent, or otherwise furnish a firearm to a person under 18 without the consent of a parent, guardian or other person responsible for the general supervision of the minors welfare.
Arizona - An unemancipated person under 18 not accompanied by a parent, grandparent, guardian or a certified hunter safety instructor or certified firearms safety instructor acting with consent of the minor`s parent, grandparent or guardian shall not carry or possess on his person, within his immediate control, or in or on a means of transportation a firearm in any place open to the public or on any street, highway, or on private property, except private property owned or leased by the minor or the minor`s parent, grandparent or guardian. This prohibition does not apply to a person between 14 and 17 engaged in lawful hunting, marksmanship practice, transportation of an unloaded firearm for the purpose of hunting or, between 5:00 AM and 10:00 PM, transportation of an unloaded firearm for the purpose of marksmanship at a range or other area where the discharge of firearms is not prohibited. This law applies in counties with a population exceeding 500,000. However, counties with a lesser population, or cities and towns within such counties, may adopt an ordinance identical to this law.
California - A minor may not possess a handgun except with written permission or under the supervision of a parent or guardian.
Colorado - It is unlawful for any person under 18 to possess a handgun, and it is unlawful to provide or permit a juvenile to possess a handgun. Exceptions to this prohibition are:
1. Attendance at a hunters safety course or firearms safety course.
2. Engaging in lawful target shooting.
3. Participating in or practice for a performance by a group organized under IRA code 501(c)(3) which uses firearms as part of such performance.
4. Hunting or trapping with a valid license.
5. Traveling with an unloaded handgun to or from any activity described in subparagraphs 1 through 4 above.
6. While on real property under the control of the juveniles parent, legal guardian or grandparent and who has the permission of the parent or legal guardian to possess a handgun.
7. While at the juveniles residence and with permission of parent or legal guardian to possess a handgun for self -defense.
Connecticut - It is unlawful to sell a firearm to any person convicted of a felony, any illegal alien or any minor under the age of 18. It is unlawful to sell or transfer a handgun to any person who is forbidden to possess a handgun, or to a person under 21. However, a handgun may be temporarily transferred to a person under 21 for target shooting under the immediate supervision of a person eligible to possess a handgun and such use is otherwise permitted by law.
Washington D.C. - All rifles and shotguns must be registered with the Metropolitan Police. To obtain a registration certificate, the applicant must be 21(or be over 18 and have a liability statement signed by a guardian).
Delaware - It is unlawful for a parent to permit a child under 16 years of age to possess a firearm or air or BB gun except under the direct supervision of an adult.
Florida - It is unlawful to sell, give, lend or transfer a pistol or other arm or weapon "other than an ordinary pocketknife" to a minor under the age of 18 without a parent`s permission, or to any person of unsound mind.
It is unlawful for any dealer to sell any "pistol, Springfield rifle or other repeating rifle" to a minor.
A minor under 18 may not possess a firearm, other than an unloaded firearm at home, unless engaged in lawful activities.
Georgia - It is unlawful for any person to sell or furnish a handgun to a person under 21 years of age.
Hawaii - It is unlawful for a minor under 18 to possess a rifle or shotgun. However, a person 16 or over, and any person under 16 while accompanied by an adult, may carry and use any lawfully acquired rifle or shotgun, and suitable ammunition therefore, while engaged in hunting, or while going to and from the place of hunting, or while engaged in target shooting at a range.
Iowa - It is unlawful to sell, loan, give, or make available a rifle or shotgun or ammunition therefor to a person under 18. Caliber .22 rimfire ammunition is deemed to be rifle ammunition. However, a parent, guardian, spouse who is 18 or older, or another with the express consent of the minor`s parent or guardian or spouse who is 18 or older, may allow a minor to possess a rifle or shotgun or ammunition therefor which may be lawfully used.
It is unlawful to sell, loan, give, or make available a handgun or ammunition therefor to a person under 21. Exceptions to this prohibition are:
1. A parent, guardian, or spouse who is 21 or older, of a person less than 21 but at least 14 may allow the person to possess a handgun or ammunition therefor for any lawful purpose while under the direct supervision of the parent or guardian or spouse who is 21 or older, or while the person receives instruction in the proper use of handguns from an instructor 21 or older, with the consent of such parent, guardian or spouse.
2. A person under 21 but at least 18 may possess a handgun and ammunition therefor while on military duty, while a peace officer, security guard, or correctional officer, when such duty requires the possession of such a weapon or while the person receives instruction in the proper use of a handgun from an instructor who is 21 or older.
Idaho - It is unlawful for a child under 12 to possess any shotgun, rifle, or other firearm while in the fields or forests or in any tent, camp, auto, or any other vehicle.
Illinois - It is unlawful for any person under the age of 18 to possess a handgun or concealable firearm. A person under the age of 21 is not required to have an Firearms Owner`s Identification Card (FOI) in order to possess a firearm or ammunition while under the immediate control of a parent, guardian or other adult who has a valid FOI.
Indiana - It is unlawful for any person except a parent or guardian to sell or give a handgun to any person under 18.
Kansas - "It is unlawful for persons under 18 to possess a firearm with a barrel less than 12 inches unless such persons are: (1) in attendance at a hunter`s or firearms safety course, (2) target shooting at an established range, (3) engaging in an organized competition involving the use of such firearm or participating in or practicing for a performance by an organization exempt from federal income tax pursuant to section 501(c)(3) of the internal revenue code of 1986 which uses firearms as a part of such performance, (4) hunting or trapping with a valid license, (5) traveling to or from any activity described in (1) through (4) above with the firearm being unloaded, secured and outside immediate access, (6) on real property under control of their parents, legal guardian or grandparent, with permission to possess such firearm, or (7) at their parents` or legal guardian`s residence with permission to possess such firearm for self-defense."
...
etc.
And what about the article (that I can't find) about the three-month-old who owns a gun?
I'm thinking that the legalese makes a distinction between ownership and possesion?
Can you clear up these apparent contradictions?
There is no contradiction to clear up. The only thing that needs to be cleared up is your cluttered and dishonest mind.
No, Radar, I think she's right... It can't be an inherent human right you're born with but that kids don't have... thats a contradiction.
You have a right to life when you are born and with that comes the right to defend that life. Parent's are the guardians of their children until they reach the age of majority and as such, they hold all decision making powers, and decide whether or not it is appropriate for them to have guns or if the parent will exercise the right to defend their family.
So there is no contradiction. We have a right to own guns at birth, and until we have reached the age of majority, that right is either exercised or not by our parents.
When we reach the age of majority we take responsibility for our own life and our parents are no longer our guardians.
We have a right to own guns at birth that we don't have the right to exercise ourselves?
Still not making sense to me, dude.
From the moment of your birth until the moment you reach the age of majority (Which is recognized as 18 in America) you are not really a person under the law. You are merely the chattel of your parents. You don't have any decision making authority or powers over your life. Your parents hold these powers for you until you reach the age of majority.
Your parents do not have the right to physically endanger you, but they do have the right to decide which of your rights they will allow you to exercise until you are the age of majority and are responsible for your own life and can make those decisions for yourself.
You have the right to own a gun at birth. Your parents decide whether or not you will be allowed to exercise that right.
Let's use someone else as an example other than a child to clear up the point.
If you are a prisoner, you are prevented from exercising certain rights like the right to go where you want, when you want. The warden of the prison will decide which of your rights you will be allowed to exercise while you're in the prison and which you will not. This doesn't mean you don't have the rights, just that you will not be allowed to exercise them. Once you get out of prison, you are able to choose for yourself when you will exercise your rights again.
So we have basic rights inherent to being a person but only if the government says you're old enough?
And what about the article (that I can't find) about the three-month-old who owns a gun?
The three month old does not own a gun, but was issued an Illinois Firearms Owner ID card ... all that means when the other legal requirements for gun ownership are met, he'll be able to apply to purchase a gun in that state.
There is a difference between "owning" and "using under supervision."
I have a philosophical question which I've thought about often while reading arguments about how it's unconstitutional to have restrictions on gun ownership.
If that is true, then what about all the other laws that restrict people from doing what they want? Some road rules. Smoking laws. Curfews. monopoly laws for business. There are so many situations where this argument can apply. I don't see how it's valid.
Ringer's Paradox: it states, with considerable justice, that A freedom restricted is a freedom preserved.
In practice, laws of that kind are codified with the aim of preventing problems arising from exercising a freedom with absolutely no limitation whatsoever. The freedom to swing a fist ends where the other fellow's nose begins, and so forth. That is what Ringer's statement amounts to.
Ringer's Paradox: it states, with considerable justice, that A freedom restricted is a freedom preserved.
In practice, laws of that kind are codified with the aim of preventing problems arising from exercising a freedom with absolutely no limitation whatsoever. The freedom to swing a fist ends where the other fellow's nose begins, and so forth. That is what Ringer's statement amounts to.
So restricting guns (not that I endorse it) is an effort to preserve that freedom - cool!
From the moment of your birth until the moment you reach the age of majority (Which is recognized as 18 in America) you are not really a person under the law. You are merely the chattel of your parents. You don't have any decision making authority or powers over your life. Your parents hold these powers for you until you reach the age of majority.
Your parents do not have the right to physically endanger you, but they do have the right to decide which of your rights they will allow you to exercise until you are the age of majority and are responsible for your own life and can make those decisions for yourself.
You have the right to own a gun at birth. Your parents decide whether or not you will be allowed to exercise that right.
That's not what you inferred. Now you're saying that we have these rights, but aren't allowed to exercise them due to age. What else might be legitimate reasons for disallowing the exercising of rights? And what about the rights to life, liberty, and the pusuit of happiness (drinking alcohol)
Let's use someone else as an example other than a child to clear up the point...
No, because your point was "from birth" not "from incarceration".
So we have basic rights inherent to being a person but only if the government says you're old enough?
No. You have rights regardless of whether or not there is a government, and you can only exercise which rights your parents allow until you live on your own...regardless of whether or not we have a government.
So... you have rights unless your parents say you don't then. Lovely.
I have a philosophical question which I've thought about often while reading arguments about how it's unconstitutional to have restrictions on gun ownership.
If that is true, then what about all the other laws that restrict people from doing what they want? Some road rules. Smoking laws. Curfews. monopoly laws for business. There are so many situations where this argument can apply. I don't see how it's valid.
Because we have the right to do whatever we want as long as our actions don't physically harm, endanger, or violate the property, person, or rights of non-consenting others.
Road rules are there for safety and to ensure that people do not endanger each other. Smoking laws are all wrong as are monopoly laws.
You have the right to shoot yourself up with Heroin. You do not have the right to drive a car on public roads while high on heroin, or fly a jet, work heavy machinery around other people, etc.
Merely owning guns does not harm or endanger others and those who claim otherwise are liars.
So... you have rights unless your parents say you don't then. Lovely.
Wrong. You have them, you just can't exercise them unless your parents allow you to.
So restricting guns (not that I endorse it) is an effort to preserve that freedom - cool!
Violating the rights of those who are harming nobody does not preserve freedom. In fact it virtually guarantees the worst kind of tyranny. Only Nazis and their ilk support limiting, restricting, or outlawing gun ownership for regular people and not for government.
You have the right to shoot yourself up with Heroin.
How can you have this right when the very substance itself is illegal? Are you saying I have the right to illegal drugs?
Yes I am. I'm saying that all laws against drugs, prostitution, gambling, polygamy, or any other consensual act ore violations of our natural rights. You have the right to put anything you want into your own body (once you reach the age of majority). No government has any legitimate authority to prevent you from doing so.
Wrong. You have them, you just can't exercise them unless your parents allow you to.
Wait, what? How can you have them if you can't exercise them?
Ok. I'm down with all that, Radar. Now. Let's say I choose to shoot some heroin, a thing my govt. looks down on, and I become sick--I go to the local ER expecting health care for my breathing problem related to shooting too much H. I've no money to pay for the care and no insurance. Who is responsible for caring for me while I am ill and paying the bill?
Same thing goes if I choose to use sex workers who may be sick with STD's--who pays for my care?
You are, or the charity of anyone willing to help an addict.
You are, or the charity of anyone willing to help an addict.
If i can't pay and no one will help me---I die. I guess this would help with the population problem but it seems rather----uncivilized. :yelsick:
Well so what do you propose? I mean, those are the two options... either you save yourself or someone else saves you. Otherwise, you die. I mean, thats a rather simple formula, no?
Well so what do you propose? I mean, those are the two options... either you save yourself or someone else saves you. Otherwise, you die. I mean, thats a rather simple formula, no?
I guess I am getting at the whole idea that I have the right to use illegal drugs; or any harmful substance, without thought for the common good or the common dollar. Personal choices are rarely personal--they nearly always effect someone. A child, a govt. agency, a community service...just a thought, ya know.
Wrong. You have them, you just can't exercise them unless your parents allow you to.
When I was away from my parents I exercised several rights without their permission, as was my right.
anyone willing to help an addict.
to perhaps be more palatable, forget being an addict. Think of grandma who insisted on biscuits and gravy or big mac's three times a day with heart trouble, the bar tender who got CA from second hand smoke, the daredevil who drives too fast and crashes...if anyone has the right to do anything they want with their bodies, how can I be responsible for their care? yet, we have welfare care.
Wait, what? How can you have them if you can't exercise them?
Your rights are still your rights even if someone is preventing you from exercising them or is violating them. Does your right to own property disappear if someone steals your property? Of course not. You have the right to free speech even when the government is preventing you from exercising that right.
Our rights are immutable. They can not go away. They can not be given away, traded, bought, sold, or voted on. They are like gravity. If everyone on earth voted for gravity to disappear, we'd still have it.
Ok. I'm down with all that, Radar. Now. Let's say I choose to shoot some heroin, a thing my govt. looks down on, and I become sick--I go to the local ER expecting health care for my breathing problem related to shooting too much H. I've no money to pay for the care and no insurance. Who is responsible for caring for me while I am ill and paying the bill?
Same thing goes if I choose to use sex workers who may be sick with STD's--who pays for my care?
You alone are responsible for your own healthcare. All government funded healthcare or social programs are wrong. There should be plenty of non-profits that might offer you help, but if they don't you have only yourself to blame.
When you consent to take part in an activity, you are consenting to the risks involved in it. If you sleep with street walkers, you might get an STD and you'll have only yourself to blame. It should be noted that there hasn't been a single case of an STD in the more than 30 years of legal prostitution in Nevada. In fact there hasn't even been a case of someone getting the sniffles.
If you consent to use dangerous drugs, you have only yourself to blame if you become addicted. It should be noted that not all drug use is drug abuse, and that if the government ended the failed "war on drugs", they would be very affordable and dosages would be regulated and measured so we'd have fewer deaths from overdose, virtually zero deaths from gang warfare for drug territory, families wouldn't be broken up and wouldn't have to collect welfare, and even addicts could support their habit with a regular job so there would be fewer robberies to pay for it.
The government is here to protect us from each other. It's not here to protect us from ourselves.
If i can't pay and no one will help me---I die. I guess this would help with the population problem but it seems rather----uncivilized. :yelsick:
I think it's very civilized. Those who die due to irresponsibility (though we hope them to be few in number) would serve as an example to others of why they should act responsibly.
& if you've always been sick, so what! Right Radar?
Personal decisions USUALLY effect more than just ourselves. That's my point. Lots of CA patients are addicted to pain meds-thru no fault of their own. Are mentally ill people responsible for their mental illness? This is too slippery a slope for me and I'm a misanthrope to boot.
So. I am responsible for my own health care, my own police force?
BTW--I'm all for legalized prostitution.
Whether our decisions "effect" others only matters if that effect is physical harm, endangerment, or the violation of your person, property, or rights. We can't use government to lock people up who hurt your feelings.
As far as people who are sick through no fault of their own, they should get insurance, or rely on private non-profit charities like Doctors without borders as well as friends, family, neighbors, their church, or hospitals and clinics who are willing to help them out.
Nobody is OWED healthcare paid for by unwilling others. You have the right to get any healthcare you can afford or which you can get honestly through charity or other means. You do not have the right to use thugs (government) to force others to pay for it. The same is true of education, charity, retirement, etc.
Police on the otherhand are another matter. Other than in anarchy and lawlessness, a society does have legitimate laws to protect one persons property, rights, and self against attack by others. We have the right to defend ourselves by any means necessary and to hire agents to do that for us. This prevents the weak from being victimized by the strong. This is why a police force is unlike government funded (theft) charity is wrong, but government funded police are not.
Whether our decisions "effect" others only matters if that effect is physical harm, endangerment, or the violation of your person, property, or rights. We can't use government to lock people up who hurt your feelings.
I was thinking of children who are caught up in the nuttiness of the behaviour of their parents/guardians. I wasn't talking about "feelings"--but you knew that.
Legislating morality is "feelings".
That still is off topic from helping those who need it. The two are unrelated.
"Get insurance", where, from the magic insurance lamp? LOL, that was hilarious, "get insurance"... LMAO!
I don't really care about the morality or immorality of the act. My behavior impacts others whether I intend it to or not. That's all I'm saying. In a perfect world, naturally, it wouldn't--what I did would only affect me--not my kids, not my family, not my community. It doesn't really work that way.
Radar alienates where ever he goes. I was trying to get answers and he just wants to take pot shots and jab. I don't see his uber-defensive attitude helping his political ambitions.
How is that hilarious? People buy insurance every single day. Were it not for my insurance, the birth of my child a few days ago would have cost me close to $100,000. The few hundred a month I pay in comparison is a pittance.
I don't really care about the morality or immorality of the act. My behavior impacts others whether I intend it to or not. That's all I'm saying. In a perfect world, naturally, it wouldn't--what I did would only affect me--not my kids, not my family, not my community. It doesn't really work that way.
Radar alienates where ever he goes. I was trying to get answers and he just wants to take pot shots and jab. I don't see his uber-defensive attitude helping his political ambitions.
My political ambitions are over. I'm no longer a member of the Libertarian Party and I choose not to vote anymore or run for office. I'm concentrating on raising my child and will most likely move to another country before this one collapses under its own debt and increasing levels of socialism, authoritarianism and the mixing of church and state.
Uhhh... that was a quick shift...
I'm concentrating on raising my child and will most likely move to another country before this one collapses under its own debt and increasing levels of socialism, authoritarianism and the mixing of church and state.
Will you keep dual citizenship for your daughter? Or make a clean break?
I remember how hard you had to work to get your wife over here---will you go back to her home country?
My daughter doesn't have dual citizenship. She's an American citizen. I haven't really chosen another country yet, but it most likely would not be Vietnam, although they are moving closer to freedom and America is moving further away from it.
I couldn't recall your wife's native country--I knew it was an Asian country--though not which one.
IF you did decide to live in another country-would you keep your daughter's American citizenship? I worded my question weird the first time. I know some countries let you keep it (i believe the Netherlands is one, Ireland and Italy are others) and others do not--a friend told me Canada will NOT let Americans have dual citizenship.
Living in a society provides everyone in that society with benefits. The majority of us must agree to that because if not, we'd be living as hermits in caves, totally disconnected from society and the benefits there-of.
Nothing in this world comes for free. You always have to pay the ferryman.
If you want the benefits of living in society, that society has the right to say how you should live within it, so laws are created which suit the majority at the time of their making.
Sometimes these laws need to addressed because they've become outdated or even obsolete.
If you don't like living by the laws of society, then don't live in it or do something about those laws.
I suggest comming to Australia if you like strict gun laws. :)
I suggest moving to a country at war if you like the idea of being able to carry machine guns around the street. :)
Living within a society does not mean giving up rights. It means common protection under the law. It means people agree not to harm each other and face consequences if they don't.
The "benefits of living in a society" are merely that you stand up for each other when something happens. Those benefits do not include taking from those who earn to provide food, shelter, education, healthcare, etc. for those who don't.
Society has no rights; only individuals do. Society has limited powers. They are limited to what the people grant to it. One individual has no authority to take the earnings of another to pay for their own wants or perceived needs. This means they may not legitimately grant this power to government.
The wants of millions of people are less than the rights of a single person.
Australia is a beautiful place, but I see it as having a bunch of rednecks with different accents. The Southern United States are beautiful too, but I wouldn't want to live there either. And I can carry a gun all I want there.
I prefer to live in a free country that has citizens rather than subjects and you won't find freedom in the UK or any of its former colonies.
[COLOR=#393925][FONT=Verdana]Going back to original question...Do I own a gun? Yes, yes I do.[/FONT][/COLOR]
[LIST]
[*][COLOR=black][FONT=Arial]1851 Colt Navy Black Powder .44 cal [/FONT][/COLOR]
[*][COLOR=black][FONT=Arial]Ruger GP 100 .357 mag :thumb: [/FONT][/COLOR]
[*][COLOR=black][FONT=Arial]Ruger Mark II Target Model .22 w/scope & [FONT=Arial]Pachmayr grips :thumb2: [/FONT][/FONT][/COLOR]
[*][COLOR=black][FONT=Arial]1920 Mossberg Brownie Four Barrel .22 Pistol (First model of any gun ever produced by Mossberg)[/FONT][/COLOR]
[*][FONT=Arial]1950s-1960s EIG "Derringer" .22 w/ 3” Over/Under Tip-Up Barrels (Italian knockoff of Mossberg Brownie)[/FONT]
[*][FONT=Arial]FIE TZ 75 9mm Semi-Auto (Clone of the Czech CZ 75)[/FONT]
[*][COLOR=black][FONT=Arial]Savage Arms .380 Model 1917[/FONT][/COLOR][/LIST]
My political ambitions are over. I'm no longer a member of the Libertarian Party and I choose not to vote anymore or run for office... I'm concentrating on raising my child and will most likely move to another country ...
As ZippyT would say - "bu-bye"
Before you go, are you going to back up any of your attack on me with evidence, or just admit you lied.
... I don't see his uber-defensive attitude helping his political ambitions.
Watch out, Bri! This is where Wolf swoops in and dismisses what you've said, saying you were picked last in kick ball, or some crap like that.
Living in a society provides everyone in that society with benefits. The majority of us must agree to that because if not, we'd be living as hermits in caves, totally disconnected from society and the benefits there-of.
But with the internet we have what fills the need for socializing, without the cost. My cave is air conditioned.
If you want the benefits of living in society, that society has the right to say how you should live within it, so laws are created which suit the majority at the time of their making.
Here there is one more hurdle. The desired law must pass Constitutional muster to make sure the majority didn't pass a law to fuck with the minority. That's the difference between our system and a pure democracy.
aside.... I believe using heroin is legal, while buying, selling, and possession is not. Isn't that why they take a user to the hospital instead of jail?
a friend told me Canada will NOT let Americans have dual citizenship.
Your friend's information is outdated.
http://www.uscitizenship.info/en_US/faq/citizenship/ans/g96.jspHow is that hilarious? People buy insurance every single day. Were it not for my insurance, the birth of my child a few days ago would have cost me close to $100,000. The few hundred a month I pay in comparison is a pittance.
Insurance is not available to everyone. People who already have a condition needing treatment at the time of application are often refused. That would include people who are born needing treatment and continue to need it when they can no longer be included on their parents' plan. No?
As ZippyT would say - "bu-bye"
Before you go, are you going to back up any of your attack on me with evidence, or just admit you lied.
You mean like the mountain of evidence already given? But as a pathological liar and the asshole you are, you would probably deny I ever did.
You mean like the mountain of evidence already given? But as a pathological liar and the asshole you are, you would probably deny I ever did.
Quote me. If there's so much, just do it. No need for name calling.
Scroll back yourself jackass. And there is a need for name calling. When someone is an outrageously idiotic asshole constantly and tells lies about those who use guns and who even denies a FACT like our natural right to own guns, they are begging to be called names.
You're a fucking worthless idiot.
Now you get what you want so badly you little troll.
Your right to own guns is not a fact. You just made it a fact because it is your perspective on how everyone should live. That means not everyone thinks it is a fact that it is your right to own a gun. All you are doing is forcing your views on other people and pathetically thinking that your way to live is the right way to live. There is no right way to live and hopefully you can accept that. What you are doing is just the same thing as forcing people not to own guns but in the reverse form.
My right to own a gun IS a fact. It's as much a fact as is your existence. If you deny my right to own guns, you deny your own existence and that of all human beings.
It's not my "perspective" and it's not an "opinion". It's a cold, hard, undeniable fact.
We have rights and those who claim otherwise deny facts. I don't demand that anyone else have a gun, I only demand that they don't infringe on my right to do so. If they do, they will get my gun bullets first.
Prove that it is a fact. Have fun with abstract concepts.
Prove that it isn't. The problem is you're applying the concept only to guns when it applies to everything you do. The rights you are born with, you can't fully exercise until you are of age, because your parents with the help of society, suppress your freedom of choice.
That doesn't mean you lost them, because when you reach the age, you can exercise them..... unless you escape before then. Then It's up to you what rights you want to relinquish and for what in return.
If you have a ball, but your parents won't let you play with it until you're 18, it's still your ball. If your parents destroy it, you've lost it, but thats only because it's a physical item. That's also exactly why rights can't be taken away, they can only be given away.
Radar, I don't think refering to a whole nation as a bunch of rednecks is going to endear anyone to your cause.
I would argue that we have a higher level of freedom in Australia than just about anywhere else in the western world.
I guess I can excuse you for your ignorance though. How would you really know what it's like here?
You are probably right, Ali, simply because you have the elbow room. With a population of 20 million it's easier to do what you wish with out stepping on someone's toes. It's that toe stepping that makes them want to come up with new restrictions, like a teacher trying to keep order in an overcrowded class by making more rules.
Oh, and you say redneck like it's a bad thing. Tell her Buster.
Yeah, we have more room, but most of it's desert where no one except indigenous people have been able to live. We definitely don't have the same issues with population that other more populated countries do, but we still don't have enough resources to support what we do have. Namely water at the moment. Our deserts are growing, water is becomming more scarce, and yet our primary industries are not changing their way of thinking in order to face these changes head on.
We definitely have issues here, and definitely some things are more highly regulated than others, but in my experience and from my own observations, we still have a very ideal lifestyle here. Maybe I only say that because I've lived here all my life so I'm culturally socialized to think that way, but it's amazing how many people from other countries are enthralled with the lifestyle here. There must be something attractive about it.
Hmmm...I don't want to get into a discussion with Buster. I don't think he likes me. lol
Not true. I like most folks that I've met from downunder.
As an outsider with limited input, I get the impression that generally life there is more laid back and less go go go than here.
Well it's nice to know you don't dislike me buster. I had the feeling you didn't (or found me particularly annoying) after your responses to a couple of my posts recently.
Yeah, life here is pretty sweet as far as day to day stuff goes. Australian's are also generally very socially conscious. This could be either a symptom or a cause of our social service system. Either way, there are good safety nets in place which probably directly contributes to generally lower levels of stress in the general population.
Radar, I don't think refering to a whole nation as a bunch of rednecks is going to endear anyone to your cause.
I would argue that we have a higher level of freedom in Australia than just about anywhere else in the western world.
I guess I can excuse you for your ignorance though. How would you really know what it's like here?
The "level of freedom" can be measured in a number of ways. I say if you can't carry a gun you don't have any freedom at all. I'd say America is a much more free place than Australia, though you're ok on prostitution.
I do know a bit about Australia, having been there when I was on a WestPac in the Navy, and having quite a number of Australian friends. A friend of mine has art displayed in an Australian museum. Australians in general are very friendly people; even those who are less educated about things like freedom...like you.
I was even approached about teaching for the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology a few years ago.
Now you're just being a rude prick Radar. There's no need.
I hope your daughter is doing well.
Cya.
Your right to own guns is not a fact. You just made it a fact because it is your perspective on how everyone should live. That means not everyone thinks it is a fact that it is your right to own a gun. All you are doing is forcing your views on other people and pathetically thinking that your way to live is the right way to live. There is no right way to live and hopefully you can accept that. What you are doing is just the same thing as forcing people not to own guns but in the reverse form.
Man that was backward.
You just can't get it.
Freedom, remember?
The
right to be free.
We own guns because we have the right to be free... we force
nothing on others.
You are perfectly free
not to own a gun.
Our way we
both live as we like.
Your way, you FORCE others to your will because you can't stand the fact that they don't agree with you.
Pretty simple, but you won't get it because you choose not to understand freedom.
Your right to own guns is not a fact. All you are doing is forcing your views on other people and pathetically thinking that your way to live is the right way to live.
I see. So if I don't check with you to see whether or not its ok for me to have a gun then I'm forcing
my view on
you?
If you had made that post when Daniel Webster was still alive, your words would have been immortalized as a timeless example in the definition of
self-contradictory.
One thing I can tell you, sir: no right of mine is contingent on your opinion. And if the argument - or rather that bullet in your left foot you just proferred as one is any example of how developed your socio-political ideas are then maybe you should stick with engineering.
Noooooo.... you would be FORCING your freedom upon him! LOL!!!
Noooooo.... you would be FORCING your freedom upon him! LOL!!!
Unbelievable isn't it? For a minute, I actually thought PH's parakeet escaped, got into the tequila then tap-danced that post out itself.
Really pierceh. -- you must not insist on being tied up and forced to be free. And don't insist that is what the people of freedom are doing to anyone, let alone you.
When you pass from teenager to full adult (not snarking here, this is but an observation of the road we've all of us walked, some more recently than others) you'll understand how you put your foot in that pitfall. It's possible you'll not do so again. But do learn the lesson, or you will put your foot in it again -- stress, too, upon will.
Paging through an NRA magazine this afternoon while trying to recover from a bit of sunburn I got from attending a Memorial Day ceremony outdoors -- Noxema is my friend -- I found this remark:
"Liberal journalist Michael Kinsley famously quoted a colleague as saying, 'If liberals interpreted the Second Amendment the way they interpret the rest of the Bill of Rights, there would be law professors arguing that gun ownership is mandatory.'" -- Jonah Goldberg
Scroll back yourself . . . idiot.
Now you get what you want so badly you little troll.
It is my view that this thing that Spexx wants so very badly is exactly the thing he must not get. Not because Spexx wants it, but because the thing he wants is so very wrong -- and Spexx needs a new prescription because he cannot see the wrongness of it.
If Spexx is not converted from this hellroad path, that's of small moment so long as no one else in the Cellar nor anywhere else goes with him. Derisive laughter -- optional, and not recommended. However, if he is converted, hallelujahs are in order.
There's still plenty of room over here with the angels, Spexx.
But you must cease to fear the wrath in your own soul. I embraced mine and found constructive outlets for it -- martial arts are wonderful that way. Thus I avoided repression and the irrational outbursts repression can fuel -- and does make necessary, on some level.
Prove that it isn't.
Grow up, if you make the initial claim it is your job to back it up. Radar made the claim with no proof and I asked him to prove it so it is his job to back the claim up.
If you really want me too I can. As an American or a westerner you can say it is your "right" because in our society we usually accept the ability to own a gun to protect yourself as a “right”. That “right” doesn't apply to every society though, which means it isn't universal. So, if the ability to own a gun to protect yourself is not universal that means it is not a universal “right”.
Just because something is a "right" in American or western society doesn't mean that it is universal.
Another example, we say we have a "right" to own property. In a communist, anarchical, or even in most Native American societies there is no personal property (land). Are those people having their "rights" taken away from them? In our society we see it that way but they (as long as they support the regime) will disagree with you. Are either of you right? No, it is just perspective.
Are any of you familiar with a book called "Instinct Shooting" by Lucky McDaniel? My stepfather bought a copy for me years ago (and I think it was out of print even then). I was looking for it this morning, but most of our books are stacked in bags in the basement and I couldn't find it.
Instinct Shooting was developed by Lucky, and he would demonstrate the technique using an old bb gun with the sites removed. His finale was to shoot another bb thrown in the air. He was able to teach this technique to a large number of people in a single four-hour lesson, including shooting through a piece of clear tape over a lifesaver rolling across the floor, without breaking the lifesaver, and without using sites.
I'm wondering if any one here has been trained in this technique.
Grow up, if you make the initial claim it is your job to back it up. Radar made the claim with no proof and I asked him to prove it so it is his job to back the claim up.
If you really want me too I can. As an American or a westerner you can say it is your "right" because in our society we usually accept the ability to own a gun to protect yourself as a “right”. That “right” doesn't apply to every society though, which means it isn't universal. So, if the ability to own a gun to protect yourself is not universal that means it is not a universal “right”.
Just because something is a "right" in American or western society doesn't mean that it is universal.
Another example, we say we have a "right" to own property. In a communist, anarchical, or even in most Native American societies there is no personal property (land). Are those people having their "rights" taken away from them? In our society we see it that way but they (as long as they support the regime) will disagree with you. Are either of you right? No, it is just perspective.
You've proven nothing other than your own ignorance of what rights are. Our rights don't come from society and can't be taken away by society. We are born with our rights and our rights are universal and the same regardless of what "society" we happen to live in. If "society" violates our rights, it doesn't mean that we don't have those rights. It doesn't matter if "society" recognizes rights, they still exist.
We are born with the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Part of life is defending that life by any means necessary. Any claims by "society" to the contrary are irrelevant. Any claims that we don't have rights is laughable and ludicrous.
Society has no rights. Society is nothing but a collection of individuals and as such, it may have no more powers than we, as individuals, have to grant to it. Society has no legitimate powers over those of a single individual.
Are any of you familiar with a book called "Instinct Shooting" by Lucky McDaniel? My stepfather bought a copy for me years ago (and I think it was out of print even then). I was looking for it this morning, but most of our books are stacked in bags in the basement and I couldn't find it.
Instinct Shooting was developed by Lucky, and he would demonstrate the technique using an old bb gun with the sites removed. His finale was to shoot another bb thrown in the air. He was able to teach this technique to a large number of people in a single four-hour lesson, including shooting through a piece of clear tape over a lifesaver rolling across the floor, without breaking the lifesaver, and without using sites.
I'm wondering if any one here has been trained in this technique.
I was taught when young by my grandfather, he is amazing... pretty sure he met Lucky. He knew a few slingers and was fair himself. I am a natural. Have not trained for a long time, it hurts my shoulder and wrist now, I hit what I shoot at though. Mostly I shoot B-27 police silhouette but am now doing some FBI bulls-eyes, the cop's are getting too easy.
On the ranch when I practice sniping I use melons, no reason to travel over a thousand yards or two to look at a shot again.
Honestly, I just want one anti to tell me what my target practicing and legal carry
does to them, what it actually
does. No emotion, just
fact.
Prove me wrong...
I would not matter. Every time I refute you with logic and reason you just don't reply.
I have already done so and you are still spewing the same nanny-state, totalitarian crap.
Just own it, you don't believe in freedom, you think you are better than others and think you should be able to tell them how to live, think and act because you are an elitist snob.
Own it, you will feel better.
Obviously he doesn't believe in freedom. He doesn't even know what freedom is. He denies the existence of rights or he thinks they come from "society". He's clueless.
I was taught when young by my grandfather, he is amazing... pretty sure he met Lucky. He knew a few slingers and was fair himself. I am a natural. Have not trained for a long time, it hurts my shoulder and wrist now, I hit what I shoot at though ...
rkzenrage - it's too bad you're so far away; I'd really like to learn that. I don't think that a book is a substitute for hands-on training (if I can even find the book).
P.S. I'm relatively new to this site, but I've read a few posts where you mention health issues. Is this discussed in more detail somewhere? I'm not morbidly curious, but I think it might help me with a deeper perspective.
Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45
Your right to own guns is not a fact. You just made it a fact because it is your perspective on how everyone should live. That means not everyone thinks it is a fact that it is your right to own a gun. All you are doing is forcing your views on other people and pathetically thinking that your way to live is the right way to live. There is no right way to live and hopefully you can accept that. What you are doing is just the same thing as forcing people not to own guns but in the reverse form.
Man that was backward.
You just can't get it.
Freedom, remember?
The right to be free.
We own guns because we have the right to be free... we force nothing on others.
You are perfectly free not to own a gun.
Our way we both live as we like.
Your way, you FORCE others to your will because you can't stand the fact that they don't agree with you.
Pretty simple, but you won't get it because you choose not to understand freedom.
Why didn't you reply to this?
It was a perfectly reasonable response to your post.
I set you up perfectly to take-me-down! Show-me-tha'-light!
Just put your superior point into words, clearly, logically, showing me how it is freedom and does not violate my rights and is not you trying to force me to your way of thinking and is best for everyone and safer for me with an intruder in my home or with me being disabled at the mercy and whim of the world, unable to run away from any situation... it was all yours dude and you just let it go, WHY?... LOL!
rkzenrage - it's too bad you're so far away; I'd really like to learn that. I don't think that a book is a substitute for hands-on training (if I can even find the book).
P.S. I'm relatively new to this site, but I've read a few posts where you mention health issues. Is this discussed in more detail somewhere? I'm not morbidly curious, but I think it might help me with a deeper perspective.
Unfortunatley I am really unable to to it too many times and would be unable to do it enough to teach you.
Honestly, the book is really good and, as long as you really pay attention to what it says, it does a great job.
One of my dreams has been to own a Peacemaker & now I can't use it like it deserves... sucks.
I am friends with the direct descendants of the Henry clan.
You should
see some of the weapons they own... it hurts they are so beautiful! My wife was best friends with them in school.
Heelllloooooooo?
C-mom pierce... its your time! Time to shine, finally, a perfect opening, time to finally, logically, succinctly, absolutely, refute the gun owning argument once and for all, without all that emotional blather that has been getting in everyone else's way... I set you up man!
Here you go!
All he can say is "rights don't exist unless "society" gives them to you without anything to back up his claims. He denies the very existence of rights. You can't reason with someone who is unreasonable.
Unfortunatley I am really unable to to it too many times and would be unable to do it enough to teach you.
Honestly, the book is really good and, as long as you really pay attention to what it says, it does a great job.
One of my dreams has been to own a Peacemaker & now I can't use it like it deserves... sucks.
I am friends with the direct descendants of the Henry clan.
You should see some of the weapons they own... it hurts they are so beautiful! My wife was best friends with them in school.
rkz - my stepfather collected guns - primarily Winchester shotguns and rifles, I think. I don't know where they all went after he died a few years ago. (I just did a google search and see that he was Michigan Trap Association Doubles Champion a couple of times. I also saw a Model 21 that he commissioned, for sale for $63,000.)
He was the one who introduced me to guns, and, with one exception, all the guns I have came from him. Unfortunately, I could never get the hang of skeet shooting, but I was an "expert rifleman" in the military.
The guys and I invented a skeet called rugby at lunchtimes on the ranch. No time now, but I'll tell you about it later.
Dont own a gun, but i would get one, i enjoy shooting.
i own a browning .40 cal beretta but hid the clips when i went on vacation
the only problem is i hid them so damned well that i can't find them
what a moron:redface:
nitro 1364, Did you check the underwear drawer?
nitro 1364, Did you check the underwear drawer?
yeah, no dice
of course i'm not looking for dice so i suppose thats a good thing
You've proven nothing other than your own ignorance of what rights are. Our rights don't come from society and can't be taken away by society. We are born with our rights and our rights are universal and the same regardless of what "society" we happen to live in. If "society" violates our rights, it doesn't mean that we don't have those rights. It doesn't matter if "society" recognizes rights, they still exist.
We are born with the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Part of life is defending that life by any means necessary. Any claims by "society" to the contrary are irrelevant. Any claims that we don't have rights is laughable and ludicrous.
Society has no rights. Society is nothing but a collection of individuals and as such, it may have no more powers than we, as individuals, have to grant to it. Society has no legitimate powers over those of a single individual.
It is like talking to a religious fundamentalist.
"Prove to me that God exists"
"It says so in The Bible."
"Prove to me that rights exist"
"it says so in the constitution."
Once again, we are not born with rights because they are human made. You have said before that animals don't have rights but we do. That implies that we are somewhat better than animals which is also laughable to anyone that knows anything about biology. You said that human rights came with the first human. You clearly don't understand evolution because species are constantly changing to fit in with their environments so there isn't a changing point.
It is like saying when does a boy become a man. There is no point when it happens, you have to put an artificial time on it. You would have to do the same thing if you wanted rights to pop out of nowhere.
Also, you are just changing definitions to fit YOUR perspective on how we should live. You guys are turning into brainwashed fundies.
Man that was backward.
You just can't get it.
Freedom, remember?
The right to be free.
We own guns because we have the right to be free... we force nothing on others.
You are perfectly free not to own a gun.
Our way we both live as we like.
You misunderstood me. You are forcing the idea that everyone has a right to own guns when it is a local social right instead of universal. If a society says that you don't have a right to own guns and are perfectly happy in living that way, you are saying they are wrong and should change.
We have the right to be free? That is too broad to be used in an argument because freedom encompasses basically everything. The thought that you can do anything you want is ridiculous and the irony of social restraints is enormous.
To take it from another direction, PH; do you have the right to live?
If your local town decided one day that in order to maintain order, you had to be randomly killed, because there were too many people living in your area. Would you go to the killing station and accept your fate because some form of society said so?
In reality, we have no rights but our society invented "the right to live" to keep stablility and avoid chaos. I agree with the idea of rights in most aspects, I am just disagreeing that they are natural and they are universal.
I would rebel and and not accept to be killed but I am also not saying we should ban guns either.
Society decides the extent of your right to live, whether it comes to the death penalty, self defense, wars, etc.
Like all of the rights affirmed in the Constitution, society defines the limits.
Are any of you familiar with a book called "Instinct Shooting" by Lucky McDaniel? My stepfather bought a copy for me years ago (and I think it was out of print even then). I was looking for it this morning, but most of our books are stacked in bags in the basement and I couldn't find it.
Instinct Shooting was developed by Lucky, and he would demonstrate the technique using an old bb gun with the sites removed. His finale was to shoot another bb thrown in the air. He was able to teach this technique to a large number of people in a single four-hour lesson, including shooting through a piece of clear tape over a lifesaver rolling across the floor, without breaking the lifesaver, and without using sites.
I'm wondering if any one here has been trained in this technique.
I have been through the formal H&K instructed courses using hammer and double tap techniques. I am not familiar with the author but I have heard of the technique.
I have been through the formal H&K instructed courses using hammer and double tap techniques. I am not familiar with the author but I have heard of the technique.
I found a reasonably
good article on Wikipedia by searching under Lucky McDaniel.
I've heard of double tap, but what's hammer?
I found a reasonably good article on Wikipedia by searching under Lucky McDaniel.
I've heard of double tap, but what's hammer?
Very interesting! thanks I will read it.
It is like talking to a religious fundamentalist.
"Prove to me that God exists"
"It says so in The Bible."
"Prove to me that rights exist"
"it says so in the constitution."
Once again, we are not born with rights because they are human made. You have said before that animals don't have rights but we do. That implies that we are somewhat better than animals which is also laughable to anyone that knows anything about biology. You said that human rights came with the first human. You clearly don't understand evolution because species are constantly changing to fit in with their environments so there isn't a changing point.
It is like saying when does a boy become a man. There is no point when it happens, you have to put an artificial time on it. You would have to do the same thing if you wanted rights to pop out of nowhere.
Also, you are just changing definitions to fit YOUR perspective on how we should live. You guys are turning into brainwashed fundies.
You misunderstood me. You are forcing the idea that everyone has a right to own guns when it is a local social right instead of universal. If a society says that you don't have a right to own guns and are perfectly happy in living that way, you are saying they are wrong and should change.
We have the right to be free? That is too broad to be used in an argument because freedom encompasses basically everything. The thought that you can do anything you want is ridiculous and the irony of social restraints is enormous.
Human rights existed before there were human beings. We alone have rights because we alone have the level of sentience to have DISCOVERED those rights. Note the fact that I didn't say we CREATED rights.
Humans didn't create rights; we DISCOVERED them in much the same way we DISCOVERED gravity. Both gravity and natural rights are part of natural law. Both are equally immutable and undeniable. Neither of them can be voted, bought, sold, given, or taken away.
We don't have rights because the Constitution says so. We'd have rights without any Constitution, without any government, and without any "society". We are BORN with them. They are as self-evident, tangible, and real as the presence of oxygen.
I did not say human rights came with the first human. You asked when the first human being got their rights, and I said when the first human was born. The rights already existed, but a human didn't get those rights until a human was born.
I'm not changing my definitions. I've been perfectly clear, logical, reasonable, and unlike you...sane in everything I've said and I've never contradicted anything else I've said.
Society doesn't dictate rights. Society does not exist. Only individuals do. A collection of a hundred million people has no more rights than a single person and has no legitimate authority to prevent a single person from exercising their rights.
[INDENT]
"If mankind minus one were of one opinion, then mankind is no more justified in silencing the one than the one - if he had the power - would be justified in silencing mankind."
- John Stewart Mill[/INDENT]
You say the right to be free is too broad. Here's a very clear definition of what we have the right to do and it has laser accuracy...
We have the right to do
ANYTHING we want as long as our actions don't PHYSICALLY harm, endanger, or infringe upon the person, property, or equal rights of non-consenting others.
Your denial of universal human rights is akin to denying that gravity exists. Your claims that rights are a human social construct are so laughable and idiotic there hasn't been a word invented for this stupidity yet. This is why you're a joke to everyone on this board.
"If mankind minus one were of one opinion, then mankind is no more justified in silencing the one than the one - if he had the power - would be justified in silencing mankind."
- John Stewart Mill
That is unless the one might have the intention of doing 'harm' to the others, or the others had the intention of doing 'harm' to the one.
I always find it's a bad idea to quote philosophers on message boards because there are always a lot more variables than that which can be contained in one single quote.
"I guess one person CAN change the world, but most of the time they probably shouldn't" - Marge Simpson
No reason really, it just seemed to fit. :)
lol...does every male in Brisbane watch that bloody show?
There isn't too much that can't be explained with a Simpsons reference!
You tried your best, and you failed miserably. The lesson is, never try.
Homer J. Simpson
No, most Native Americans didn't own property and were perfectly content with that even when they knew that the white settlers did it. They chose not too because they didn't think it was necessary to their way of life, so it wasn't a right in their culture.
I am pretty sure every culture can agree on the right to life so I won't go into that but if a culture agrees that they don't want to have "the right to own property" as a right, why should we tell them they are wrong? They are just living a different lifestyle than you are with different perspectives on how they should live.
No human ever owned property until the agriculture revolution 10,000 -12,000 years ago. Were the people before that too stupid to not realize that they could own property? No, of course not, they were just as smart as us, just that their lifestyle didn't demand the need to own property so it wasn't a right to them.
What you are doing is telling them that their culture and way of life is wrong which is outrageous. If they want to live their lives without owning property then it is up to them. If they want to adopt our lifestyle then fine, let them. Just don't tell them they are wrong because I guarantee many will think they same about yours.
What you are saying is that humans are somewhat special in the universe. It’s hard to accept but humans don't mean anything to the universe and we are nothing to it except another animal. We are no better than any other animal on this planet, then why should we have natural rights? The only explanation is that we think we are better, so we made up rights to satisfy that thought.
You stupidly claim that no human owned property before the agricultural revolution. How do you know this? The answer is you don't. There were hundreds of ancient civilizations.
Let's say I agree that "most" people didn't own property back then. Why was this? It was because people could only own what they could defend, and because people migrated from one area to another in search of food. The agricultural revolution was what got people to stay in one place so they could cultivate crops. It wasn't that people couldn't own property, it was that they didn't think they'd be able to live if they stayed in one place. Tribal peoples like the American Indians shared everything and were pretty much communists (all communism and socialism is inherently wrong) as well as being migratory people. They not only didn't see the need to own land, they didn't think land could be owned. They didn't comprehend the concept of property ownership. So in answer to your ridiculous question, YES, they were too stupid to realize they could own land and it cost them most of America.
The gargantuan thing you are ignoring, and the gaping hole in your ridiculous claims is the fact that even then they had the RIGHT to own property. Whether or not they chose to exercise that right is irrelevant. Whether or not the tribe in which they lived believed they could own property is also irrelevant.
The only human you speak for is yourself, and if you want to believe you aren't above animals, that's fine. If you want to act like an idiot and deny natural, immutable, self-evident, and universal human rights, that's fine too. If you find yourself violating my rights, you may find yourself without a voice to deny such things because dead people don't talk much.
Our rights aren't an "idea" or a "thought" or a "concept". They weren't made up by humans. They weren't made up by societies. They have existed for as long as the universe has existed. It took the beings with the highest level of sentience on the planet (humans) to DISCOVER rights. Rights don't go away when they are being violated by "society" or by governments. This is a universal truth and will continue to be regardless of the number of times you blather incoherently denying it.
No, most Native Americans didn't own property and were perfectly content with that even when they knew that the white settlers did it.
Not true. Another popular fabrication used to rationalize European conquest. We keep repeating it because we "learned" it in "history" class.
Now we understand, pierce does not believe in freedom, equality or a republic. There is no more discussion.
He wants a police state.
Society decides the extent of your right to live, whether it comes to the death penalty, self defense, wars, etc.
Like all of the rights affirmed in the Constitution, society defines the limits.
Bullshit! I'm alive, it is my right and as long as I'm able to stay alive and kill you to stay that way if you are tryint to take it away, it is my right.
Tribal peoples like the American Indians shared everything and were pretty much communists (all communism and socialism is inherently wrong) as well as being migratory people. They not only didn't see the need to own land, they didn't think land could be owned. They didn't comprehend the concept of property ownership. So in answer to your ridiculous question, YES, they were too stupid to realize they could own land and it cost them most of America.
Stop making your opinion fact. That is why you will never see it a different way because you are too closeminded to notice that you are not the center of the universe. This obviously isn't going anywhere on relation to rights so I'm going to let that die.
Now we understand, pierce does not believe in freedom, equality or a republic. There is no more discussion.
He wants a police state.
Is that the great logic you speak of?
I do not believe in universal ethics but yet I am a moral person. How does that work? Maybe just because I believe that freedoms are man-made doesn't mean that I don't believe we should use them.
Not true. Another popular fabrication used to rationalize European conquest. We keep repeating it because we "learned" it in "history" class.
Sorry, I was refering more towardsthe Plain Indian groups that did tend to live a life free of owning property. I also realize that the Plain Indians did live a life of agriculture but stopped when the settlers from Europe came and brought them horses.
Not true. Another popular fabrication used to rationalize European conquest. We keep repeating it because we "learned" it in "history" class.
Tribes or sub-groups controlled territories, I've never heard of any tribe claiming to own land and certainly not individual Indians.
Maybe our resident expert can clarify.
Well, he did say North America. (in his "this is my America thread") I suppose that included the Aztec cities. Is that what you are talking about Flint?
The
Hohokam of the American Southwest had personal property.
I don't see any reference in that link that indicates any personal property.
It does say, however....
Designating culture groups, such as the Hohokam, tends to create an image of group territories separated by clear-cut boundaries, like modern nation states. These simply did not exist. Prehistoric people traded, worshiped and collaborated most often with other nearby groups. Cultural differences should therefore be understood as “clinal,” "increasing gradually as the distance separating groups also increases."
Sorry, I was refering more towardsthe Plain Indian groups that did tend to live a life free of owning property. I also realize that the Plain Indians did live a life of agriculture but stopped when the settlers from Europe came and brought them horses.
They also spent a lot of time killing their neighbors.
Communism and socialism have been used to enable the ruling classes to practice some of the worst and most complete genocides in history... the
first step of each being to disarm the public.
Native Americans, however are
completely OT to this conversation.
I don't see any reference in that link that indicates any personal property.
It does say, however....
"Settlements in the Hohokam tradition were rancheria-style; near arable land, with several buildings clustered together. Each large, square house had slightly excavated floors and was usually no more than one room until very late in the Hohokam sequence."
I don't know how personal it was but it is pretty close.
Pierce, read the Lakota Winter Counts.
If I can't get to it tonight I'll try to read it in the next few days, I don't know how long it is.
Communism and socialism have been used to enable the ruling classes to practice some of the worst and most complete genocides in history... the first step of each being to disarm the public.
What? Capitalism has caused much worse genocides than communism or socialism. The African genocide was a direct result of capitalism and that killed an estimated 12-100 million depending on sources and raped them of their culture. Then the Native American genocide was more just white supremacy but capitalism plays a part in it as well.
Any authoritarian state can do what you said, Hitler was in no way a socialist or a communist. Stalin did it as well. What do they have in common? Authoritarian state.
There has never, ever, ever, ever been a genocide that has resulted from capitalism. Capitalism has never failed and prevents violence, but never causes it. Some stupidly would point to the great depression and accuse capitalism of failing, but it was the exact opposite. It was government intervention on free markets and the money supply that led to the depression.
Pure, unregulated, unhampered, free-market capitalism means nobody is ever forced into any transaction, and nobody has their livelihood or goods stolen from them by government or others. It ensures that all parties involved in every transaction are trading peacefully.
The worst genocides (worse than Hitler's genocide of Jews) occurred in communist China and communist Russia.
Capitalism had nothing to do with the single death of a single person in all of recorded history.
For the record, communists and fascists are equally authoritarian.
"Settlements in the Hohokam tradition were rancheria-style; near arable land, with several buildings clustered together. Each large, square house had slightly excavated floors and was usually no more than one room until very late in the Hohokam sequence."
I don't know how personal it was but it is pretty close.
If I can't get to it tonight I'll try to read it in the next few days, I don't know how long it is.
What? Capitalism has caused much worse genocides than communism or socialism. The African genocide was a direct result of capitalism and that killed an estimated 12-100 million depending on sources and raped them of their culture. Then the Native American genocide was more just white supremacy but capitalism plays a part in it as well.
Any authoritarian state can do what you said, Hitler was in no way a socialist or a communist. Stalin did it as well. What do they have in common? Authoritarian state.
LMAO... what the fuck is "The African Genocide"? Who said "Let's kill all tha' Africans?" OMG! Talk about ambition!
What was Hitler's party called again? You must have done really well in history... LOL!!!
Oh christ, I knew there was a reason I've been avoiding this thread.
There has never, ever, ever, ever been a genocide that has resulted from capitalism. Capitalism has never failed and prevents violence, but never causes it. Some stupidly would point to the great depression and accuse capitalism of failing, but it was the exact opposite. It was government intervention on free markets and the money supply that led to the depression.
The slave trade could easily be considered a genocide in many senses and that is a direct result of capitalism. The estimated deaths are from 12 million to 100 million depending on the sources you use (realistically 16-20 million).
According to David Stannard's American Holocaust, 50% of African deaths occurred in Africa as a result of wars between native kingdoms, which produced the majority of slaves.[14] This includes not only those who died in battles, but also those who died as a result of forced marches from inland areas to slave ports on the various coasts.[15] The practice of enslaving enemy combatants and their villages was widespread throughout Western and West Central Africa, although wars were rarely started to procure slaves. The slave trade was largely a by-product of tribal and state warfare as a way of removing potential dissidents after victory or financing future wars.[16] However, some African groups proved particularly adept and brutal at the practice of enslaving such as Kaabu, Asanteman, Dahomey, the Aro Confederacy and the Imbangala war bands.[17] By the end of this process, no less than 18.3 million people would be herded into "factories" to await shipment to the New World.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_slave_trade#Human_tollThe slave trade could easily be considered a genocide in many senses and that is a direct result of capitalism. The estimated deaths are from 12 million to 100 million depending on the sources you use (realistically 16-20 million).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_slave_trade#Human_toll
You mean all those slaves sold to the whites by the black slave traders?
LMAO... what the fuck is "The African Genocide"? Who said "Let's kill all tha' Africans?" OMG! Talk about ambition!
Our ancestors...
What was Hitler's party called again? You must have done really well in history... LOL!!!
The Nazi party was refered to as National Socialist German Worker Party.
Yet, while it had the label of a socialist party it has much to do with socialism as China has to do with a Republic.
Nationalism and Socialism in a sense can be related but to call Hilter a socialist is foolish, he did it for the state, not the people.
Hilter was more right winged than left winged.
http://politicalcompass.org/analysis2
Hilter may have considered himself somewhat anti-capitalist but that brings up the question of why he was doing business with American corporations. American capitalism funded the rise of Hitler's war machine.
http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/llt/51/pauwels.htmlYou mean all those slaves sold to the whites by the black slave traders?
And in Germany, all those whites killing whites! It can't be genocide!
You mean all those slaves sold to the whites by the black slave traders?
Many were sold to slave owners but many died in Africa and on slave ships. They are deaths regardless.
That is leaving out all the destorying of culture that happened as well.
Many were sold to slave owners but many died in Africa and on slave ships. They are deaths regardless.
That is leaving out all the destorying of culture that happened as well.
True. I think the African nations owe them a debt for rounding them up and selling them off.
The slave trade could easily be considered a genocide in many senses and that is a direct result of capitalism. The estimated deaths are from 12 million to 100 million depending on the sources you use (realistically 16-20 million).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_slave_trade#Human_toll
The slave trade had nothing to do with capitalism. Capitalism is the free trade of goods without harming or endangering others. All people taking part in capitalism are doing so willingly. This would leave the slave trade out.
the next person that posts to this thread is a known pedophile
I've been called much worse. I'm such a little...well, ya know...
Pierce, I'd say it's time for you to read your
von Kuehnelt-Leddihn. His argument that both fascism and communism are things of the left is very solidly made, in his
Leftism Revisited. He was an unabashed fan of monarchy, particularly the House of Habsburg. YMMV, though.
And really, when it comes to fascism, alleging fascists are rightwingers is nearly meaningless. It is perhaps instructive to consider that Soviet Russian propagandists, not wanting to have to explain to anybody how International Socialism -- Good, while National Socialism -- Bad, picked the distinctive term
Hitlerites -- "Gitlerovtsy" -- for the Nazis.
The slave trade had nothing to do with capitalism. Capitalism is the free trade of goods without harming or endangering others. All people taking part in capitalism are doing so willingly. This would leave the slave trade out.
The slave trade has everything to do with capitalism.
The point of capitalism is to make as much profit as possible. If you don't have to pay your workers then you can make maximum profit.
If you disagree please tell me what the slave trade resulted from and why my post is wrong. Then give the definition of capitalism and how the two (capitalism and slave trade) are unrelated.
Pierce, I'd say it's time for you to read your von Kuehnelt-Leddihn. His argument that both fascism and communism are things of the left is very solidly made, in his Leftism Revisited. He was an unabashed fan of monarchy, particularly the House of Habsburg. YMMV, though.
And really, when it comes to fascism, alleging fascists are rightwingers is nearly meaningless. It is perhaps instructive to consider that Soviet Russian propagandists, not wanting to have to explain to anybody how International Socialism -- Good, while National Socialism -- Bad, picked the distinctive term Hitlerites -- "Gitlerovtsy" -- for the Nazis.
I will read him when I get the chance but can you recommend one work that will get the point you are trying to make across the best?
The slave trade has everything to do with capitalism.
The point of capitalism is to make as much profit as possible. If you don't have to pay your workers then you can make maximum profit.
If you disagree please tell me what the slave trade resulted from and why my post is wrong. Then give the definition of capitalism and how the two (capitalism and slave trade) are unrelated.
Wrong. The point of capitalism is the free exchange of goods or money on a value for value basis. When the first caveman traded food for animal skins to stay warm, capitalism was born. Naturally, each party in a transaction will try to get the most for themselves at the least cost.
Slavery did not result from capitalism. It resulted from people like you, who think rights are not part of natural law and who think rights come from "society". It was these people who captured others and sold them into slavery, and these people who bought them.
The buying and selling of slaves had nothing whatsoever to do with capitalism because it has nothing to do with the free exchange of goods. Human beings aren't "goods" even if "society" says so.
DUH, pierce! Dont you know, capitalism is never wrong - all the other stuff that LOOKS like capitalist mistakes are actually not capitalist at all, you people-hating monster!
The slave trade has everything to do with capitalism.
The point of capitalism is to make as much profit as possible. If you don't have to pay your workers then you can make maximum profit.
If you disagree please tell me what the slave trade resulted from and why my post is wrong. Then give the definition of capitalism and how the two (capitalism and slave trade) are unrelated.
How might you explain the extensive use of slaves in the Gulags of Russia? Given it was essentially a totalitarian/socialistic and eventually a communistic regime, that is the anti-thesis of capitalism.
http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/bcaplan/museum/czar3.htmDUH, pierce! Dont you know, capitalism is never wrong - all the other stuff that LOOKS like capitalist mistakes are actually not capitalist at all, you people-hating monster!
How ironic that in your attempt to be sarcastic, you actually said something that was true. Capitalism is never wrong.
Slavery on the other hand doesn't even look like capitalism to those who know what capitalism actually is.
How might you explain the extensive use of slaves in the Gulags of Russia? Given it was essentially a totalitarian/socialistic and eventually a communistic regime, that is the anti-thesis of capitalism.
http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/bcaplan/museum/czar3.htm
Wasn't that a case trying to get benefit for the state to balance the cost of keeping those prisoners, rather then taking them prisoner to accomplish the work?
Hi everyone...you know.....again.
I'm too moody to own a gun........I'll admit it.
I've been out to the shooting range several times, and I'm not a bad shot.......It just seems like when I have a gun in my hand other people look very very nervous. And I think to myself- there must be a good reason for that.
Besides, i've been lucky enough so far to "do the do" without one. My aggressors have always lost sorely, and none of them have had a gun. I also don't believe that any of them deserved to die. Of course I thought so at the time, but in retrospect, I think they deserve exactly what they got. No more and no less.
Slavery is about keeping them alive to work, not killing them... cannot be called a genocide. Africans being captured and sold by Africans to whomever would buy them, just as many Europeans as Americans. Not a genocide.
WWII Germany Capitalist!? there was nothing remotely free about that system, nationalizing all the banks and manufacturing ROTFL!... DUDE Pierce, you are so funny... I love reading your stuff, makes my day!
You don't believe in freedom, just own it man.
This is pointless. I'm not going to argue with someone who actually believes capitalism is never wrong. It isn't worth it.
Slavery is about keeping them alive to work, not killing them... cannot be called a genocide. Africans being captured and sold by Africans to whomever would buy them, just as many Europeans as Americans. Not a genocide.
Since 1/3 of the blacks that came on slave ships died I'm pretty sure they did a pretty bad job at it. They didn't care if they died or not because they could always get more. When 16 million die that can easily be counted as a genocide. The killing of the culture plays a role in it as well.
It's not very useful to consider anything pre-industrial revolution to be Capitalism as we know it. Certainly nothing before 1776 when Adam Smith published "The Wealth of Nations". Probably nothing until Marx came along to define what it was not. Hard to say what the economics was, in the days when most ships sailed under the direction of Kings.
I forgot to reply to this earlier but radar and rage, read this carefully then re-read it about five more times because you two don't seem to get it.
I believe rights are made by society and that is what helps keep us in order. I follow and respect most rights that are made by our society. I will never hurt anyone, make someone do something against their will like slavery, or force my ideals upon anyone else.
If you do not understand what I just said, don't bother because you never will.
The Middle Passage is supposed to be a good book related to this discussion. I haven't found time to read it, yet. However, I found a website
here that has good info for inquiring minds.
I forgot to reply to this earlier but radar and rage, read this carefully then re-read it about five more times because you two don't seem to get it.
I believe rights are made by society and that is what helps keep us in order. I follow and respect most rights that are made by our society. I will never hurt anyone, make someone do something against their will like slavery, or force my ideals upon anyone else.
If you do not understand what I just said, don't bother because you never will.
that's why they call it dope, bub.
Speaking of people shooting each other, I just watched blood diamond. Has anyone else seen it?
These people look like a hoot to party with.
Look at their profiles...
they look like a bunch of fucking weirdos
Ya' think? Every profile is the same, they all say Swinger and Bi and every profile has weird 80's music on it.
It's a gun cult.
I enjoy shooting and all... but, I doubt that ten year old kid has a class 3 license.
Like I said, fuking weirdos. ;)
I would love to hear their entry exam... "Soooooo... who do you and your wife like to screw?"
Or how...just to make sure they 'fit in' and all.
Bi chicks with guns are hot n' all... there is that.
There may be something to this... hmmmmm....
Who is this master?
I think I may be starting to see tha' light!!!!
would you pretend to be a gun weirdo just to bag a cute bi swinger chick? i might.
But... their kids have guns....
It's all so damn CONFUSING!!!
I don't have to pretend LJ.
I got an IN!
It's tha' religion that'll get me shot....
and it not just tha' chick... it's tha' chick and her FRIENDS!
I forgot to reply to this earlier but radar and rage, read this carefully then re-read it about five more times because you two don't seem to get it.
I believe rights are made by society and that is what helps keep us in order. I follow and respect most rights that are made by our society. I will never hurt anyone, make someone do something against their will like slavery, or force my ideals upon anyone else.
If you do not understand what I just said, don't bother because you never will.
I have always understood what your pathetic beliefs are. They are just based in stupidity, ignorance, and have no basis in fact or logic. They are completely stupid. Rights don't come from society. You can claim that all you like, but every time you say it, you are lying and I'll call you on it. Rights weren't created by people; every time you say it, you're lying and I'll call you on it. Rights can't be taken away, given away, or voted away; every time you claim otherwise, you are lying and I'll call you on it. If you don't understand this, you're a waste of human flesh and don't deserve to live...but we knew that already.
Your beliefs are irrelevant. You've been presented with FACTS and you still deny them. This is pure stupidity, dishonesty, and willful ignorance. There are people who believe Hitler was a nice guy, but those people are no more or less full of shit than you. There are people who think raping children is ok. They are no more or less full of shit than you.
My views are shit? That is why the majority of philosophers agree with me? Just because you use your views political gain doesn't mean they are right.
The famous philosopher and child prodigy Jeremy Bentham once said,
"Natural rights is simple nonsense: natural and imprescriptible rights, rhetorical nonsense -- nonsense upon stilts."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_rights
So I am obviously not the only one who thinks this and remember, this guy was a child prodigy.
How can I prove that natural rights do not exist? They are not enforced by nature. A natural law enforced by nature. An example of natural law is the speed of light. No matter what you do, you can not change the speed of light in a vacuum. I can break one of your "natural rights" by killing you, taking away your property, or taking away your guns. How does nature enforce this? Nature does nothing so it isn't a natural law.
Here are two essays backing me up:
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-rights.htm
http://eckenrodehouse.net/anarchism/html/secF7.html
I have given you links and sources backing me up. You have given me nothing except insults.
Radar your #678 has to be the worst-argued post I have seen here in a long time... maybe ever. There is not one coherent point in it and every single sentence is pure ad hominem invective. Weak mojo man!
If you have a case for your stance you should bring it out. If you don't, you should reconsider your stance, even though to do so is abhorrent to you.
You won't win here by calling people's opposition dumb or dishonest. You'll get called on it.
Radar, you have yet to show or prove that rights are 'natural' or, for that matter, facts. Asserting that something is a fact does not make it so. I'm not saying that they aren't; I'm just saying, you have yet to make a case for them being facts of any nature.
On Sheep, Wolves and Sheepdogs
(From the book, On Combat, by Lt. Col. Dave Grossman)
http://www.killology.com/sheep_dog.htmMy views are shit? That is why the majority of philosophers agree with me? Just because you use your views political gain doesn't mean they are right.
The famous philosopher and child prodigy Jeremy Bentham once said,
"Natural rights is simple nonsense: natural and imprescriptible rights, rhetorical nonsense -- nonsense upon stilts."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_rights
So I am obviously not the only one who thinks this and remember, this guy was a child prodigy.
How can I prove that natural rights do not exist? They are not enforced by nature. A natural law enforced by nature. An example of natural law is the speed of light. No matter what you do, you can not change the speed of light in a vacuum. I can break one of your "natural rights" by killing you, taking away your property, or taking away your guns. How does nature enforce this? Nature does nothing so it isn't a natural law.
Here are two essays backing me up:
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-rights.htm
http://eckenrodehouse.net/anarchism/html/secF7.html
I have given you links and sources backing me up. You have given me nothing except insults.
Natural rights do exist, and they are enforced by nature. Also, nearly every philosopher who has ever existed on the planet agrees with this FACT. These include Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas, Locke, Jefferson, and if you believe in Jesus of Nazareth, him too.
Only a few idiots and fools on the fringe disagree. That includes everyone you've listed.
Here are some articles and pamphlets by sane and intelligent people.
http://jim.com/spooner.htm
http://www.constitution.org/law/bastiat.htmRadar, you have yet to show or prove that rights are 'natural' or, for that matter, facts. Asserting that something is a fact does not make it so. I'm not saying that they aren't; I'm just saying, you have yet to make a case for them being facts of any nature.
If you state that you are alive, it is indeed a fact. Asserting this fact re-enforces it. I have made my case very well, and have proven for a fact that human rights are part of natural law and they exist beyond any question.
source
The term inalienable rights (or unalienable rights) refers to a set of human rights that are in some sense fundamental, are not awarded by human power, and cannot be surrendered. They are by definition, rights retained by the people. Inalienable rights may be defined as natural rights or human rights, but natural rights are not required by definition to be inalienable.
An alternative argument claims that the idea of inalienable rights is derived from the freeborn rights claimed by the Englishman John Lilburne in his conflict with both the monarchy of King Charles I and the military dictatorship of the republic governed by Oliver Cromwell. Lilburne (known as Freeborn John) defined freeborn rights as being rights that every human being is born with, as opposed to rights bestowed by government or by human law.
Civil rights and civil liberties are different. Civil rights are given to the people by the government. Civil liberties are god-given rights.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness
Criticism
The concept of inalienable rights was criticized by Jeremy Bentham and Edmund Burke as groundless. Bentham and Burke, writing in the eighteenth century, claimed that rights arise from the actions of government, or evolve from tradition, and that neither of these can provide anything inalienable. (See Bentham's "Critique of the Doctrine of Inalienable, Natural Rights", and Burke's "Reflections on the Revolution in France"). Keeping with shift in thinking in the 19th century, Bentham famously dismissed the idea of natural rights as "nonsense on stilts".
here's the thing: while governments have the power to recognize and uphold our rights, or to take them from us....WE hold the power to uphold or overthrow the government.
this make the rights natural, and not bestowable. get it? Any power bestowed on you by a governing/ruling body, can be revoked by the same.
That's the difference between a privilege and a right, rights can not be taken away, privileges can.
If you think right and privilege are interchangeable, tell the state you have a right to drive a motor vehicle.
Name a state that you have a right to do anything, with no society-enforced caveats.
The difference between cars and guns is that cars were invented after 1787, and they didn't think they needed to bother ensuring a person's right to ride a horse. And with both cars and guns, it's important to ensure that the user knows what they're doing and can be trusted.
Trusted by whom? by the government?
The natural state of human life is freedom, and civilized people give the benefit of the doubt and presume people are responsible in their own lives until they prove otherwise.
Prove to whom? The government?
Of course.
The difference between cars and guns is that cars were invented after 1787, and they didn't think they needed to bother ensuring a person's right to ride a horse.
There are thousands of things they could have mentioned, but they knew without the right to bear arms to insure peoples freedom, everything else would be a moot point.
OK, just for the sake of the argument, why don't we list what we might percieve as a natural right. We've had this one before (sorry to sound like a one trick pony, but anyway... ) but I'm not sure where. I'll start things off.
Natural right number one: The right to breath.
It's not a matter of what we "perceive" to be our rights. Our rights can't be listed because the list would be near infinite in length. You have the right to chew gum (if you've obtained the gun honestly), you have the right to walk back and forth across your own property, you have the right to do jumping jacks on your own property, etc.
We have the right to do ANYTHING we want as long as our actions don't PHYSICALLY harm, endanger, or violate the person, property, or rights of non-consenting others.
We don't have the right to physically harm, endanger, or violate the person, property, or rights of non-consenting others.
I agree with you as far as individual rights are concerned, but try and tell that to this person...
. I will never hurt anyone, make someone do something against their will like slavery, or force my ideals upon anyone else.
What kind of sneakers do you wear? Where do all of your clothes come from? Are you positive that something you purchased through normal trade (supported by the almighty evil capitalism) was not created at the hands of someone who was working against their will, forced into situations that they you would otherwise consider slavery?
In order to say that you think capitalism is wrong and that you want no parts of it, I would strongly suggest that you be ready to remove yourself from the grid totally - because the more you benefit from it - and as much as you may hate to admit to yourself that you do....really, you do. I heard being naked in a cave with only yourself for company is a wonderful way to live.
It seems fairly obvious that some people are a bit confused between what is a natural right and what is a right within society.
It seems fairly obvious that some people are a bit confused between what is a natural right and what is a right within society.
You can say that again. It was a long time ago, but I think we learned about Natural Rights and Legal Rights (enforced by a gov't or society) in college. Most folks fall in one camp or the other. What's the old argument? Is it better for one to die and all to live, or one to live and all to die? Or something like that. Basically individual vs. societal rights. Is that what you were referring to???
Dude, my brain is rusty...
Natural rights do exist, and they are enforced by nature. Also, nearly every philosopher who has ever existed on the planet agrees with this FACT. These include Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas, Locke, Jefferson, and if you believe in Jesus of Nazareth, him too.
No they are not enforced by nature. I can break you right to live by killing you. I can not change the speed of light.
All those philosophers are outdated. The heirarchy created by Aristotle was justsified for slavery and has been proven wrong by biologists.
All recent philosophers back me up.
Only a few idiots and fools on the fringe disagree. That includes everyone you've listed.
More attacks huh? I can say the same thing about the other side as well.
From what it seems like, anyone that agrees with you is sane and anyone that disagrees with you is just a quack.
You still haven't proven natural rights. You just kept telling me that I have them and I am an idiot.
here's the thing: while governments have the power to recognize and uphold our rights, or to take them from us....WE hold the power to uphold or overthrow the government.
this make the rights natural, and not bestowable. get it?
You have just proved that the people have the power to create and enforce their own rights. You have not proven natural rights, just that they can be enforced by the people.
What kind of sneakers do you wear? Where do all of your clothes come from? Are you positive that something you purchased through normal trade (supported by the almighty evil capitalism) was not created at the hands of someone who was working against their will, forced into situations that they you would otherwise consider slavery?
I personally don't hurt anyone but it is inevidable that I am part of the system that does.
In order to say that you think capitalism is wrong and that you want no parts of it, I would strongly suggest that you be ready to remove yourself from the grid totally - because the more you benefit from it - and as much as you may hate to admit to yourself that you do....really, you do. I heard being naked in a cave with only yourself for company is a wonderful way to live.
I am part of the system and I can't realisically get away from it except trying to change it. You can say the "if you don't like it just leave" line but that is a weak argument because it is unrealistic.
We don't have the right to physically harm, endanger, or violate the person, property, or rights of non-consenting others.
That's where governments come in and regulate the use of dangerous things.
What I'm stating is FACT, not opinion. If you disagree with me, you're not a quack. You're an idiot, a liar, or both. In any case, I'm right and you're wrong. 99.9999% of humanity recognizes self-evident, natural rights that we're born with. The very few others are antisocial schizoid psychopaths and are no different than Hitler in their beliefs if not their actions.
Modern philosophers do not back you up. Only idiots do.
And yes, natural laws are enforced by nature, including natural rights. You can violate natural laws like gravity by jumping into a rocket ship. This doesn't mean gravity ceases to exist. You can violate someones right to life by killing them. It doesn't mean they didn't have a right to life. You can silence people through force or coercion, but it doesn't mean they don't have the right to think and express themselves freely.
That's where governments come in and regulate the use of dangerous things.
The valid role and scope of government does not include protecting us from the use of dangerous things. It does not include protecting us from ourselves. It does not include "regulating" things that have the potential to harm. It is to protect us from hostile invasions, and to protect us from harming each other
(which has nothing to do with my previous sentence). The government is here to prevent harmful actions, not devices that someone might use to carry out harmful actions.
Regulating the use of dangerous things is part of preventing harmful actions.
What I'm stating is FACT, not opinion. If you disagree with me, you're not a quack. You're an idiot, a liar, or both. In any case, I'm right and you're wrong. 99.9999% of humanity recognizes self-evident, natural rights that we're born with. The very few others are antisocial schizoid psychopaths and are no different than Hitler in their beliefs if not their actions.
You still haven't proven natural rights. You just kept telling me that I have them and I am an idiot. (I feel like I am repeating myself)
99.9999% of humanity recognizes self-evident, natural rights that we're born with.
One, I would like to see you back that up because almost everyone I've talked too agrees with me.
Two, even if you were right about that stastic (you're not), it doesn't mean anything. 2,000 years ago you could say 99.9999% of the people believed that the Earth was the center of the universe and we know just how right they were.
You do not violate gravity by getting in a rocket ship, gravity just has as much effect on you when you are moving away from Earth as you do when you are falling from a ten story building. Using that logic I can say that I break the law of gravity by jumping. I dare you to go up to a physicist and say that. I dare you.
You can only violate gravity by making it disappear, which is impossible.
It doesn't mean they didn't have a right to life. You can silence people through force or coercion, but it doesn't mean they don't have the right to think and express themselves freely.
I can say I have the natural right to own slaves and use the same arguments as you and we would be at the same place.
Regulating the use of dangerous things is part of preventing harmful actions.
Absolutely not, HM. The government has no right to tell me I can't own a stick, a gun, a kite tube, or a
Cornballer. When I use the stick, gun, kite tube, or Cornballer as a weapon against a person, then I'm in trouble.
Then you oppose the concept of the drivers' license?
From
Wiki on natural rights:
The first philosopher who fully made natural rights the source of his moral and political philosophy was Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679). Hobbes argued that it is human nature to love one's self best and seek one's own good (this is a view known as psychological egoism). Since it is unavoidable ("necessity of nature") for human beings to follow their nature, it becomes a right to do so. According to Hobbes, to deny this right is to deny that we have a right to be human, which would be absurd, just as it would be absurd to demand that carnivores reject meat or that fish stop swimming. However, this was not a right in the conventional sense of imposing obligations on others, but merely a "liberty." Therefore, we have no obligations by birth or nature, but only unlimited rights - leading to a situation known as the "war of all against all", in which human beings have to kill, steal and enslave others in order to stay alive. Hobbes reasoned that this world of chaos created by unlimited rights was highly undesirable, causing human life to be "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short". As such, if humans wish to live peacefully they must give up most of their natural rights and create moral obligations in order to establish political and civil society. This is one of the earliest formulations of the theory of government known as the social contract.
Hobbes objected to the attempt to derive rights from "natural law," arguing that law ("lex") and right ("jus") though often confused, signify opposites, with law referring to obligations, while rights refer to the absence of obligations. Since by our (human) nature, we seek to maximize our well being, rights are prior to law, natural or institutional. This marked an important departure from medieval natural law theories which gave priority to obligations over rights. However, some thinkers such as Leo Strauss, maintained that Hobbes kept the primacy of natural law or moral obligation over natural rights, and thus did not fully break with medieval thought.
Actually I rather do. I think that you should be taken OFF the road the moment you drive recklessly and that car companies should probably self-regulate and make sure you know how to drive before you buy a car, but... That's not the government.
How would the car companies do that?
"Now before we can sell you this SUV, we need to see if you can drive it, please come this way..."
And if all car companies did this, it'd be great, but what standards would they set? Would they all adhere to the same rules? Would some companies exclude certain people and allow others?
Hmmmm...sounds like things like this need to be regulated.
Let's bring in the government, for the good of the people.
Hey, whoa, fuck you and your stupid 'reality' bullshit.
I'm talking ideals here. The world will never, ever conform to my ideals - but y'can't blame a guy for trying.
stupid reality bullshit?
c'mon Ibram, reality is what it is. All the ideals in the world aren't going to solve problems, although nice to have.
In an ideal world, no one would need to be regulated for anything because all our knowledge about right and wrong would be intrinsic. Unfortunately, human beings decided they wanted to live like...well...humans beings instead of animals.
The problem is, not everyone got the memo. ;)
You still haven't proven natural rights. You just kept telling me that I have them and I am an idiot. (I feel like I am repeating myself)
Yes I have; many times over. You just keep denying it because you don't like the truth.
One, I would like to see you back that up because almost everyone I've talked too agrees with me.
None of them are on this board that I've seen, and if there are any they most likely aren't the brightest bulbs on the tree.....much like you.
Two, even if you were right about that stastic (you're not), it doesn't mean anything. 2,000 years ago you could say 99.9999% of the people believed that the Earth was the center of the universe and we know just how right they were.
My statistic was right now, was right at the dawn of creation, and will be right until the end of the universe.
You do not violate gravity by getting in a rocket ship, gravity just has as much effect on you when you are moving away from Earth as you do when you are falling from a ten story building. Using that logic I can say that I break the law of gravity by jumping. I dare you to go up to a physicist and say that. I dare you.
Yes, you do violate gravity by going against it. Gravity pushes toward the center of the earth, and you are going away from it. You violate gravity when you jump, when you get into a rocket ship and escape from the gravitational pull of our planet, etc.
You can only violate gravity by making it disappear, which is impossible.
It's no more impossible to make gravity disappear than it is to make natural rights disappear.
I can say I have the natural right to own slaves and use the same arguments as you and we would be at the same place.[/QUOTE]
It's not a matter of what we "perceive" to be our rights. Our rights can't be listed because the list would be near infinite in length. You have the right to chew gum (if you've obtained the gun honestly), you have the right to walk back and forth across your own property, you have the right to do jumping jacks on your own property, etc.
We have the right to do ANYTHING we want as long as our actions don't PHYSICALLY harm, endanger, or violate the person, property, or rights of non-consenting others.
We don't have the right to physically harm, endanger, or violate the person, property, or rights of non-consenting others.
Philosophers have argued the case for and against natural rights throughout the ages.
I don't see how you can be so sure you know exactly what the answer is when men with far more intellect than you've shown can't come up with a feasible answer.
Hence my use of the word 'perceive'. Obviously it depends on what your own idea is, particularly as the subject is philosophical and not factual.
Yes I have; many times over. You just keep denying it because you don't like the truth.
Then what are they? Because I keep missing your proof.
None of them are on this board that I've seen, and if there are any they most likely aren't the brightest bulbs on the tree.....much like you.
Obviously not on this board and you are criticizing people you do not even know. Way to be ignorant and close-minded. *high five*
My statistic was right now, was right at the dawn of creation, and will be right until the end of the universe.
I can pull stats out of my ass too. Doesn't make them right.
Yes, you do violate gravity by going against it. Gravity pushes toward the center of the earth, and you are going away from it. You violate gravity when you jump, when you get into a rocket ship and escape from the gravitational pull of our planet, etc.
I have a feeling you don't have a degree in physics do you? Gravity is an acceleration that is directed towards the center of the Earth. When you jump you produce a force that will accelerate you away from the Earth. While you are moving away gravity always has an effect on you, which is why you slow down, stop, then come back down towards Earth. If you broke free of gravity then you would just fly off into space.
The way a rocket ship works is that it produces an acceleration that goes in the opposite direction of gravity's acceleration. These two accelerations will always be in battle with each other and to get into orbit you have beat out gravity's acceleration with your own. Once you get into orbit, gravity is still affecting you (that is why you orbit), just that you are moving fast enough tangent to the Earth that you can stay in orbit.
It's no more impossible to make gravity disappear than it is to make natural rights disappear.
It is not about making them disappear, it is about breaking them. You can break any one of your rights. You can not break the rule of gravity because you can not make gravity not effect you.
I can say I have the natural right to own slaves and use the same arguments as you and we would be at the same place.
What? Did you just not delete this or what?
There are a few people who I'd like to see 'break free of gravity' and 'fly off into space'. :)
pierce, babe.....and i say babe cuz yer like 12....
life is a natural right. you have the right to be alive. not because the government or the neighbors say so, but because you JUST DO.
is that simple enough for you to get wrapped around?
We only have that right because we say we do. Do other animals have this right?
In nature we see other animals killing other animals for food. This is natural. We live in a world of birth and death.
It is our pride as humans, and I'm included in this, to say that we specifically have a right to live. So we say we have a right to live. I do not disagree with this right because I want to live but you have to realize that it is humans that made this right not nature.
Nature does not care about humans anymore than it cares about a cow. We are not anymore special then them. To protect ourselves from ourselves and other animals, we created a right to live.
I agree with us having this right it is just I do not think it is a natural law.
not a natural law, no. but was that ever the argument?
all animals have the right to life. and when one animal is eaten by another, it's rights are being violated.
the point is that government is created by man to limit. it is a construct. go back in time to the first people walking around.....before there was a government. the natural rights of those people were uninhibited completely. the could do what they wanted. as radar said, limitless, infinite. it is only because we have such a complexity of realities inter-meshing that we need a government to hold it all together and prevent the chaos that unlimited rights would cause.
radar is an idealist. he's absolutely right about natural rights... I believe that the spirit of the constitution tells us that those rights are the most important element of our government. the role of our government is first to protect our rights. unfortunately, the actual real world truth is ...that this is not the America our founding fathers intended.
all animals have the right to life. and when one animal is eaten by another, it's rights are being violated.
I just don't see the relevance when every animal has the right to live when we have to kill thousands of organisms to breathe or have to kill another animal to survive. If I don't kill the deer, my children will starve to death, violating their rights. If I kill the deer, I violate it's right. It is always a lose-lose situation.
The way nature works is if I protect my right to live, I will have to deprive another animal of its right to live.
From looking at nature from this perspective there is no evidence that nature will enforce any right of life to any animal seeing that we need to kill to live.
The only way to break free for this reality is too say humans are better than other animals which has no proof in nature as well. A tornado will kill a human just as quickly as it will kill a dog.
all run on sentences, unclear and wandering points, and bizzarre analogies and no play make piercehawkeye go crazy.
pierce, babe.....and i say babe cuz yer like 12....
life is a natural right. you have the right to be alive. not because the government or the neighbors say so, but because you JUST DO.
is that simple enough for you to get wrapped around?
He's only a kid? Well it's all starting to make sense now. Kids always think they know everything and they don't know shit. He's only 19. He hasn't even started to learn about life yet.
You guys can't even come up with a counter-point except my grammar and age, and you are calling me immature?
I have more questions for you guys. Why would nature create a right that is intrinsically flawed? You have to kill something else to survive, you can not argue that. Why would nature create that right if you have to break it?
Another question. If we have a right to life why does everyone die? Before you laugh I know that it is usually interpreted as "no one can take your life away from you until nature does". That brings up the contradiction, why would nature make a right that nature always breaks?
Well you can't mess with the laws of nature pierce. It's part of the great circle of life. (those of you familiar with the lion king wont need any further explanation) The fact that you die has nothing to do with the rights you have when you're alive. Once you're dead you're just worm food, and I doubt worm food has any rights at all, except to be eaten.
If someone kills you then of course they've violated your right. Your right to live.
If you want to know why we all have to die, well, I'd suggest you should probably do a bit of soul searching on that one. Most people ask this question at some stage during their lives.
Just remember also that the word 'right' has a certain conotation and it's different from one person to another.
Maybe living isn't a 'right' as such. Maybe it's just a 'state of being'. Maybe there really isn't a good answer for any of these questions.
You do not have the right to kill another person to survive yourself unless that person is trying to kill you. If you are in a plane crash and there's only enough food for one person to survive, you do not have a right to kill the other person.
I don't even know why I'm wasting my time trying to tell an ignorant kid like you about rights, when you're too dim to even know what they are despite having it spoon fed to you dozens of times in this thread.
We have the right to life. Part of life is dying naturally (which does not include being murdered)
Life is a natural process. Not only do you not understand natural rights, you don't even understand the process of human life. I can't believe you even got into a weak school like the University of Minnesota. You're not even bright enough for community college.
Your lack of age is only partially responsible for your willful ignorance and glaring stupidity.
Well you can't mess with the laws of nature pierce. It's part of the great circle of life. (those of you familiar with the lion king wont need any further explanation) The fact that you die has nothing to do with the rights you have when you're alive. Once you're dead you're just worm food, and I doubt worm food has any rights at all, except to be eaten.
I can't tell if this is sarcasm or not but to become worm food you have to have your rights violated in the first place. If you do not have your rights violated then the worms starve and have their rights violated.
If you want to know why we all have to die, well, I'd suggest you should probably do a bit of soul searching on that one. Most people ask this question at some stage during their lives.
I was not getting into that, it was only an example.
I was not being sarcastic. Everyone dies. That's just part of life.
Being rude again Radar?
Only to those who richly deserve it and who have done all they can to earn it.
What's the point? It only makes them feel bad (if they need some kind of validation from you). Does it make you feel good?
You do not have the right to kill another person to survive yourself unless that person is trying to kill you.
That works only for humans, and this right has to either apply to every animal or no animals to be universal.
If you are in a plane crash and there's only enough food for one person to survive, you do not have a right to kill the other person.
I agree with this except the natural right part, we made that up.
I don't even know why I'm wasting my time trying to tell an ignorant kid like you about rights, when you're too dim to even know what they are despite having it spoon fed to you dozens of times in this thread.
Umm….I was spoon fed this since I was three and throughout my school years. I, with many other people, just don’t buy into it and see the contradiction with it.
We have the right to life. Part of life is dying naturally (which does not include being murdered)
This is a good point that you have finally brought up. This I agree with (except the natural vs. man-mad right thing). Like I said, this right has to apply to every animal or no animals for it to be universal, and you have to kill other animals to survive, which contradicts the right.
Life is a natural process. Not only do you not understand natural rights, you don't even understand the process of human life.
I understand it, I just find it funny that we say only nature can take away our natural right to life. I see what your point is though, nature taking away our life is part of the natural life cycle.
I can't believe you even got into a weak school like the University of Minnesota. You're not even bright enough for community college.
I know, and I’m actually doing pretty well too. This is all going into civil engineering which is a very tough major.
Your lack of age is only partially responsible for your willful ignorance and glaring stupidity.
Pulling out the age card again? But I forgot everyone that disagrees with you is a liar and an idiot.
Only to those who richly deserve it and who have done all they can to earn it.
Ah, thank you for showing me how your personal perspective is universal. Anyone that Radar thinks deserves punishment must deserve punishment.
Why doesn't everyone agree with Radar because he surely knows how everyone should run their lives.
Being rude again Radar?
It's all he knows. He obviously doesn't know shit about rights.
"Now before we can sell you this SUV, we need to see if you can drive it, please come this way..."
A driving course on every car lot? Why would they do it?
i'd settle for intercom systems that would allow us to dial up and bitch out the jerk in front of you that just ran a stop sign to pull out in front of you.... telephone number= lic plate ? something.
i'd settle for intercom systems that would allow us to dial up and bitch out the jerk in front of you that just ran a stop sign to pull out in front of you.... telephone number= lic plate ? something.
Isn't that what your gun is for???:lol:
i'd settle for intercom systems that would allow us to dial up and bitch out the jerk in front of you that just ran a stop sign to pull out in front of you.... telephone number= lic plate ? something.
I think that every day. That would rock. And I want one of those trailing message bars in my rear window so I can tell those I just cut up exactly what I think of them too :lol:
It's all he knows. He obviously doesn't know shit about rights.
If my head were severed in an accident, I'd know more than you about rights, and pretty much everything else too.
I think that every day. That would rock. And I want one of those trailing message bars in my rear window so I can tell those I just cut up exactly what I think of them too :lol:
One of these, Preprogram 16 messages, scrolls up to 80 characters each or text with the help of a library of 100 words and phrases.
Can be set to run all the time, on a switch, or with your brake lights.
That's pretty cool, and would come in very handy here in Southern California.
Isn't that what your gun is for???:lol:
my paint ball gun ...that jinx won't let me buy, yes.
One of these, Preprogram 16 messages, scrolls up to 80 characters each or text with the help of a library of 100 words and phrases.
Can be set to run all the time, on a switch, or with your brake lights.
That's the sucker. Solong as it's not limited to the preprogrammed library of 100 words :D
Beest has several paintball markers (guns), you'll have to come on over and borrow one, Jim. Thing is, the paint's too expensive to waste on morons who can't drive. :lol:
OK, here's a case where the remote control is so shitty as to be life-threatening.
[COLOR=DarkGreen] You thought it was hard to hit the pause button in the dark, now try it at 80 MPH when some crazy-ass motherfucker has just cut you off on the exit ramp![/COLOR]
What we clearly need, people, are big-ass buttons that say
SORRY
and
THANKS
and
FUCK YOU
These big red buttons should have rounded edges, and should be visible in different colors and shapes, in the driver's peripheral vision, so that the driver does
not inadvertently select the wrong one.
This one is not like picking the wrong intermittent wiper setting. You are communicating with average human beings. This could be your life, people.
I need the following options
"start praying"
"get off your fucking phone"
"that mascara ain't gonna make you look any prettier in the morgue"
ok, maybe that' last one's a little lengthy.........
Isn't that what your gun is for???:lol:
You think that's
funny, Spexx?!
Being rude again Radar?
He's just trying to get Pierce to grow beyond nineteen, but at an unnatural speed of forced growth -- to more closely match Radar's late-thirties. Trouble with that idea is that to become mature, you've got to do the time, day for day, year for year. So the immediate result is mutual irritation, glaringly visible. (Kid, Radar's always going to have about fifteen years on you until the day he dies -- though when you're into your twenties the gap will be smaller in all ways except calendric.)
And experiences too: people raised like hothouse plants don't do so well out in the fields. An experience that would teach Pierce why I talk the way I do around here would be at least one hitch in any branch of the Armed Forces but the Air Force (their SpecWar specialties excepted -- which would take him
beyond the way I go at things). Some people will tell you the military is not for them. Only in a few cases are they right. A military is very much one-size-fits-all, and you will be called upon to adapt. Of course, it's about an equally poor or equally good fit on those all, which is to say there's only a small group for which it's perfect and a larger group who for reasons nearly as varied as the individuals who find it a fit that's close enough. Those two groups are the career military.
That's enough digression upon the digression. We return now to the previous digression... popcorn, popcorn, who's got the airpopped popcorn with extra virgin olive oil, sea salt, and grated parmesan cheese sprinkled on...?
What, no :Popcorn: in the Smiley window?? Ah, :guinness: -- and doughnuts with... :donut:
I'm wasn't the one pathetically attacking someone with all the information I knew about the other. My perspective is valid whether you like it or not, and is held up by many people that are older than both of you. The age card can only work sometimes, but not in this instance because we are talking about philosophy which is purely opinion and I wasn't the one flinging insults around left and right.
Well I think MASHfreak has a lot going for him. Specifics of the argument aside, he has taken an interest in the topic, questoned and -most importantly- not allowed himself to be beaten down. He may be wrong, he may be right, frankly, I don't care. What he is, is true to himself, not afraid to speak out and not willing to be told "because I said so" by his elders. Many an internet veteran would have slunk away by now.
....And thank goodness he's not my child. :D (they know their place....)
To paraphrase George Carlin, everyone should have a gun that shoots suction cup darts with a flag on the dart that says "asshole". If a cop sees you with three or more flags on your car, you automatically get a ticket.:D
To paraphrase George Carlin, everyone should have a gun that shoots suction cup darts with a flag on the dart that says "asshole". If a cop sees you with three or more flags on your car, you automatically get a ticket.:D
:lol: that'd work.
National borders are obviously a limit imposed by government. Does a Mexican have the inalienable right to walk across the border into the US?
To paraphrase George Carlin, everyone should have a gun that shoots suction cup darts with a flag on the dart that says "asshole". If a cop sees you with three or more flags on your car, you automatically get a ticket.:D
That wouldn't get abused....[COLOR="LemonChiffon"]I like it.[/COLOR]
I picture people walking around with said darts sticking out of various orifices.
That wouldn't get abused....[COLOR="LemonChiffon"]I like it.[/COLOR]
It's a joke. Don't you know George Carlin? He's a comedian.
It's a joke. Don't you know George Carlin? He's a comedian.
Sorry, missed your hidden message.
National borders are obviously a limit imposed by government. Does a Mexican have the inalienable right to walk across the border into the US?
Tough question?:whofart:
No it's not... it's a stupid question.
Are your door locks a legal question?
"Oh my, the neighbors may want to come over and sleep in our bed while we are not looking. How rude of us to impede their progress!"
Welcome to dufus world, come right in, but first you must pass a test, stick this pin in your eye.
No it's not... it's a stupid question.
Are your door locks a legal question?
"Oh my, the neighbors may want to come over and sleep in our bed while we are not looking. How rude of us to impede their progress!"
Welcome to dufus world, come right in, but first you must pass a test, stick this pin in your eye.
Now did you insult me?
Maybe they have a right to walk where ever they like, but it's also your right to stop them.
That's where rights get tricky within society and where other philosophers come into the picture.
See: The Harm Principle (as an example)
Someone else had some pretty groovy property laws too. I'll have to look that one up. For now though, I have to go to work. :)
Now did you insult me?
Not you... just what you said.
The difference is a real problem in here for some.
We all say silly things that we don't think about and get called on them creatively. There is nothing wrong with some fun... I was having fun with you. I like you.
If I did not, I would not respond to you at all.
Humor, it's what's for dinner.
BTW, it was more directed at the question than your answer, but take it however you like.
Not you... just what you said.
The difference is a real problem in here for some.
We all say silly things that we don't think about and get called on them creatively. There is nothing wrong with some fun... I was having fun with you. I like you.
If I did not, I would not respond to you at all.
Humor, it's what's for dinner.
BTW, it was more directed at the question than your answer, but take it however you like.
Do me a favor - give me a smilie when you're joking. At least in this thread. :thumb:
Sure, though the core of the comment was not a joke.
I do think the idea of there being any question of any nation having a right to protect their border or even setting, and/or, enforcing their immigration protocols is ridiculous.
You really could not tell that was not a joke?
Sure, though the core of the comment was not a joke.
I do think the idea of there being any question of any nation having a right to protect their border or even setting, and/or, enforcing their immigration protocols is ridiculous.
You really could not tell that was not a joke?
No. There's been too much ridiculing in this thread.
There is a conflict between immigration laws and "innate, tangible, inalienable rights". I'm interested in how Bruce and Radar resolve the conflict.
If you are not a legal member of nation, that nation's rights do not apply to you.
Pretty easy... you have the right to legally immigrate or leave.
I was not ridiculing you, just your statement... there is a difference.
We need to end this thread-jack.
But Radar's point is that rights don't come from nations; they are innate to humanity.
If you are not a legal member of nation, that nation's rights do not apply to you.
Pretty easy... you have the right to legally immigrate or leave.
I was not ridiculing you, just your statement... there is a difference.
We need to end this thread-jack.
I agree with you about immigration. HM is right - this is no thread jack, Radar and Bruce need to respond.
This thread was jacked at page 5. All hope is lost for it.
But Radar's point is that rights don't come from nations; they are innate to humanity.
That's right, countries can only limit or curtail your rights.
yeah. rights are rights....the violation of them does not destroy them, it just....violates them.
National borders are obviously a limit imposed by government. Does a Mexican have the inalienable right to walk across the border into the US?
Yes, they do. All people have the right to travel freely. The government might violate this right, but they still have it.
