Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Paroxetine Samurai, Dec 14, 2012.
I never watch Alex Jones, Eddie Vroom.
America fuck yeah...
old but still...
Now the thread has reached that "Page 13" stage...
Cool, then STFU, because I was responding to what EddieVroom posted, hence not a derail.
I don't "hate Americans", only their foreign policies, and the collaboration in murder by their ineffectiveness in getting their government to stop the killing, or outright condoning it.
Why is any criticism of American foreign policy twisted into "hating America"?
My post is germane because Obama is talking about the tragedy and how now this and that need to be done... and all the while he orders (or refuses to countermand) the wanton killing of children in other countries.
Are you capable of feeling compassion for people from other countries? Or are they just invisible collateral damage? You exhibit a disconnection from the rest of the world, sadly typical of your breed.
I agree that we don't have that right because the constitution says we do. We have that right because we have the right to property, and guns are nothing but property, and we have the right to defend ourselves.
Rights are inalienable, that is, they are ours no matter what. If the constitution had never been written then we would still have the right to arm our self.
As for where do we draw the line, that is why we have principles. Without those, you never know where to draw the line, with them, it is usually a bright line.
oh yeah so extreme, discussing ideas is so pathetic I may just bury my head in the sand and let everyone else argue their little heads off about gun control and not try and hypothesize how we can make changes beyond these guns. What your demented ass doesn't seem to understand is that this is a forum, a place to discuss. I posed a question, an extreme question, yes, but your lack of being able to find some way to reply without acting like a fucking child is ridiculous. While extreme, my question was valid, and the answers i received proved that beyond gun control, doesn't seem like there are any fabulous ideas to help end things of this nature. That being said, it's pretty obvious that for many of you, this is ONLY a gun issue , and that's scary. Because once the guns are gone or we have stronger gun control laws, what do we do to help the people that will now still be mentally insane, still want to kill, and will find other means of doing so? That issue has been and will continue to be swept under the rug. That has been my point all along here, it's not that I don't believe guns are an issue, I believe they are ONE of the many issues and I don't want to see a perfect example for why we need more help with people with mental illness be shit on and tossed aside because all people care about is guns.
but instead, like most small voices, I get called "pathetic" for trying to bring a side view into a conversation about a tragedy. Jeeze, I forgot that having an open, educated, dialog was against the rules. SILLY STONER!
Now go crawl out of your basement and ask mommy to make you breakfast, maybe she will even make you smiley toast if you tell her what a good boy you've been by writing absolutely nothing helpful. And tell her to make me some too, I've got the munchies.
Well, you don't have the right to a nuclear weapon. That's property.
The state restricts what you are allowed to own.
The question being where to draw the line.
Just you saying it doesn't make it true.
If you want to make a philosophical/moral argument to support your assertion that ownership of weapons is a human right, I'm all ears.
But just repeating the assertion doesn't make it true.
A valid question.
Spend public funds on a universal healthcare system which includes mental health provision, perhaps?
Do you really want me to go over the basic fact that you own yourself, and the implications of that? That is a long ass discussion, so rather than do it here go back and read Locke, then come back and talk.
The fact that the state uses violence to prevent me from doing something does not make it right. At one point, the state told me to kill or go to jail.
I had always been taught that IF I kill I go to jail, now the State was telling me if I didn't kill, I would go to jail
That is when and why I decided that I had to make the decision for myself what is right and wrong. My government considers me cannon fodder, nothing more. They consider that morality is what THEY say it is, which is of course the antithesis of morality.
A bomb is an inherently evil device, since it kills indiscriminately. It doesn't matter if it is conventional or nuclear, it is inherently evil by the use it is put to.
tl;dr 262 million people slain by murdering nutjobs in the 20th century, mostly called 'politicians'
That's what I've been thinking but unfortunately that will not go over well and I'm not sure that actually solves the problem either. Because there is still the stigma of mental illness, that's not going to change the opinions view on people who need help, and even more so people who don't want taxes raised or find fault with universal healthcare will just point the finger at sick people and say " Well we aren't all sick so why am I paying for the one or two crazies that need help? not my problem!"
That's why I posted this here, I know a lot of you are very bright and outside the box thinkers. I don't have any solutions but I'm willing to put in my time to try and help come up with some. I've seen posts on here where discussions have turned into beautiful ideas and have helped changed peoples lives for the better, I mean that's why I came here so long ago and that's why I'm still here. So please, I hope no one has taken what I've said the wrong way, I really do just come with good intentions.
Edit: Well, except my snarky comment about the smiley toast, that was mean, but seriously, I'm really hungry and I bet him mom makes sick smiley toast. lol
I recognise that condescending tone. O hai Adhocrat!
Maybe we could have a counter-argument from someone who isn't putting forward the view that the state should have no legal power at all over individuals.
I.e. a non-anarchist, non-libertarian, non-AynRandObjectivist, non-completely-self-centred, non-moonbat counter-argument.
The counter-argument to that one is that anyone could become sick.
I.e. it's just luck that they aren't the sick one. It isn't due to their intrinsic merit, skill or superiority.
Also known as "there but for the grace of God go I".
Care to address the argument?
You're just someone more interested in personality than discussion.
There are personal issues and there are general issues.
If you personally own a gun or two (or have someone close to you owning a gun or two), it's one thing.
If you speak about other people's rights of owning a gun or two, it's another.
Don't confuse one with the other. You might suffer from just that, confusing the two now.
I called your post/question pathetic because it looked as though you were using the same ol same ol bullshit that even if you ban all guns people will still kill people. Its a dumbass argument that always crops up as soon as there's a mention of taking away the moonbat NRAs guns. All pro gun people always take the argument to its extreme to quash it and gain support from the not so well educated. If you mention banning armour piercing rounds they immediately say that it's a ban on ALL guns!!
I think the general consensus here is to remove high kill rate military weapons from the easy access of potential batshit crazies would not be the world ending event the pro gun idiots claim it to be. Yes, crazies will be crazies and want to randomly kill, but to sell something that makes that incredibly easy, fast and efficient over the counter at walmart is about as stupid as a country can get! When the "right to bear arms" was written guns were single shot, manual reload and insanely inaccurate, nowadays a blind person could walk into a school armed with a modern weapon and take a whole fuckton of kids out! That's how efficient they are.
The human mind is an incredibly complex thing, humans have not even scratched the surface when it comes to understanding what makes us tick, that will take many many years of research, maybe we will never fully understand the human mind.
But, in the meantime, let's take stupidly easy ways of killing high numbers of toddlers out of the equasion!
Bullshit. The only reason you have these "rights" is because the government chose to give them to you. If you think they can't be taken away again, tell me how your free speech or freedom of/from religion is doing lately.
We have the right to property?
Shit, that means I have the right to a swimming pool made out of cake. That's property. GET ME A CAKE POOL NOW.
The only purpose a gun can serve is to hurt or kill people. A knife can perform surgery and save lives. All a gun does is kill. By your own logic, a gun is an "inherently evil device."
Wow, moonbat rant if ever I heard one!
Society? Ever heard of it? You probably live in one, reap the benefits of it, security, healthcare, safe drinking water etc etc,etc
Well, as a member of the society that cradles you, you are expected a few things in exchange for the above benefits, obey a few laws of that society for one, in the uk, if you break one of those laws you get a tap on the shoulder by a copper, in your society, due to batshit crazies like you who are obsessed with weapons, you get a cop with a gun in your face! It's the price you pay for your precious "arms" live with it!
Your society also expects your loyalty and support in times of trouble, society mistakenly thinks that all those guns you fap over would be of use in the way they were designed, fighting wars. Sometimes the price of freedom in the "land of the free" is to grow some and go fight for that freedom! It's not a one way street sunshine, you can't just take and not have to give a little!
Also a bomb? ORLY??? How was the indiscriminate slaughter of toddlers with a gun wildly less evil than a bomb? How the fuck is a bomb more evil than your fecking gun? Tard
here's a quote for you:
notice it says "endowed by their creator"
So no, government doesn't give me rights, but they are supposed to protect them. That truly is the only function of government, to protect our rights, through courts, police and the military.
I agree that when the entity that is supposed to protect our rights starts violating rights, then we have a problem, but the problem is the government is not doing its job and overstepping its boundaries. Like the judge said in that grandpa case, Grandpa had poor boundaries, that is exactly what is happening now, The government has poor boundaries, and unless we push back and say "This is where you stop" then they will keep pushing. Have you ever had a person grab your mask? Poor boundaries. You didn't let him do it, you stopped him with vigor and force and "Fuck off". That's what we should be telling our government, "Stop violating our boundaries."
In your world, by your formulation, the government can murder us at any time, since our right to live is merely a grant from the government. That sounds more like feudal times, when we belonged to our lord and master.
Not my cuppa
The Declaration is not codified into law. It's essentially a very famous letter. That's all. Anything it claims is not legally binding on the government, because it is not formally law. Its only use in the legal system is as research material when someone wants to try to decide what they think the founding fathers meant by (insert vague as shit phrase here) in the Constitution.
You have rights because the government chooses to allow you to have them. Do you deny that the government is capable of taking away your rights if they so choose? Answer carefully, I come forearmed with examples.
I see the issue. When I say "can," I mean "is capable of." When you say it, you mean "is allowed to." Problem with *your* definition is that the organization that decides what the government is allowed to do...is the government. Essentially, the government is capable of changing the rules on what it is allowed to do. So that brings us back to what they are capable of doing, because basically, anything we have, we have because they haven't decided to take it away.
Realistic outlooks on politics are a bitch, aren't they?
No, you prefer the dark ages!
With armour piercing bullets!
Society didn't cradle me, my mom did.
Society doesn't exist, except as a concept. Society can't demand anything of me, only people can do that. So what you are saying is that some people, who represent 'society' in your mind, are able to demand my loyalty etc
Sounds like you are rooting for a football team, not a civilization
1776 was the "Dark Ages'?
Incorrect. Humans are a herd species that have evolved a need to network with other humans in order to survive and thrive. Those humans are "people." The network itself is "society." If you neglect the network and drain it more than you feed it, it breaks down and then we all starve to death because we're incapable of functioning outside the herd. That's not people demanding that, that's the network.
Your brand of mentality, ie, I want a gun so I can get what I want regardless, is exactly the sort of mentality that has led to a whole bunch of funerals at the moment. You need to grow up and stop acting/thinking like a child.
That goes for all you pro gun numpties!
Everything depends on WHO owns a gun (or has access to it).
A policeman owning a gun is not likely to shoot innocent people. Someone, being mentally unstable, having access to guns, is more likely to do so.
imho, it's not guns, per se, must be taken under control but people.
You see a neighbor acting funny at times? You heard he has/about to get a gun? Report it! Someone's life might be at stake, including your own.
There's a Scientologist OSA agent who has attended our protests and behaved threateningly that we know for a fact carries a firearm. And as soon as we see him show up, we wave the cops over and go "hey just so you know, that creepy guy over there has a gun."
Are you (@pro-gun anon) suggesting that if such a Scientologist started following you around, you'd be all "Well, he has a right to a gun, so I'm not worried"? Or would you go "damn, this Scientologist is acting like he might fucking shoot me, I'd better not walk down a darkened alley with him"?
If you don't trust some people while armed, welcome to the gun control side of the argument.
Yeah, but "society" takes your shit away every morning after you empty your bowels, "society" provides you with food to buy, Internet to type shit on, safety in your home, people to converse with, women/men to love blah blah blah
If you think you are "speshal" then you are mistaken, you are where you live, and where you live defines you in a way.
No man is an island
Someone open a window and let the communism out, phew!
Most people will accept the call to protect their home/state/country, it's a price we all pay, except those who think they are speshal and can put up a good enough argument to hide the fact that they are just plain scared.
Yes, "society" is a vague and general concept. Yet, you are in it. Whether you want it or not (People who are not, tend to become an Hero).
Yes, society (being an invisible and intangible) cannot demand anything of you. Therefore, you might feel you don't owe anything to anyone.
Until you YOURSELF realize that: the roads you travel, the electricity you use every day (includng that of your computer), food you eat, songs you like to listen to, and many more things you got used to consume... until you realize that it's that "invisible and intangible" "society" has delivered to you.
You want to argue? Argue with me. I'll happily listen to your arguments, and even put-downs.
I can see the pro gun lobbies point of view, the world is a scary place, and a gun, specially a big gun makes you feel safe. Untill everyone gets one, then you have to get a bigger one, faster firing one, and so it goes on.
It's just hiding inadequacy deep down. That's all.
You said what I wanted to say, before me, you bastard!
Also: Self is not sufficient.
You may as well go outside and find a wall to bang your head against now, arguing with adhocrat is a complete waste of time, no matter how many times you shoot him down and make him look a fool he just moves the goalposts, he's an expert in diversion. He seems to completely be oblivious to the fact that living where he does has given him the freedom to think like he does, to hate the country that has given him so much yet he has given nothing back. It's a comfort that only a few countries provide yet he despises it for exactly that!
Having said that, if you have a few hours to waste it can be an interesting exercise for the grey matter, like trying to corner a rat!
I believe adhorcat (if it's even adhorcat) tends to view things broader than your average consumer of goods.
And I don't agree he hasn't given to you (society).
There is some concept adhorcat has that I like to think of myself being, too: cosmopolitan.
Since you are not cosmopolitan you tend to be strongly pro or strongly against. You, I think, biased.
It takes some ability to view both, many sides of things to arrive at a conclusion that there are "people here and there. they all think and feel different things. Yet, we're all humans, here and there. Therefore, all we need is support being humans, and suport our life. Support and not make it end..."
Choose a color via Color picker or click the predefined style names!