FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


National Institute for Civil Discourse - what ever for?





deanhills
Talk about wasting money. Especially in really bad economic times like these? Where did they get funding for something like this?

Following the shooting in Tucson, the University of Arizona in Tucson started a new institute to promote civility in politics called "The National Institute for Civil Discourse". Wonder how they will be promoting civility in politics, and how that could stop the next shooting from taking place?

I'm also curious to know how nonpartisan they will be as well as who will be funding the Institute? As the Institute claims to be a nonpartisan center for debate, research, education and policy.
Quote:
A university in Tucson is seeking to turn the shooting rampage that severely wounded U.S. Representative Gabrielle Giffords last month into a teachable moment with a new institute promoting civility in politics.

The University of Arizona on Monday inaugurated the National Institute for Civil Discourse, which is a nonpartisan center for debate, research, education and policy.

The center seeks to "advance the national conversation currently taking place about civility in political debate," the university said in a news release.

Source: Reuters
ocalhoun
deanhills wrote:
National Institute for Civil Discourse

National Institute for Political Correctness.

Fixed.


It's being funded with public money, isn't it? Mad
The more ridiculous the government gets, the more anarchist I feel...
menino
Even though I'm not a US citizen, I am a bit surprised by this.

Taking their point of view - what would be the solution, though ?
I think that they think that a central body to look into this problem will solve the problem.

Schools and educational institutions have a part to play in all this.
Before someone usually goes on a rampage, they usually have a history of disarray and delinquency in their lives and the people around them.
I guess that schools believe that the parents should sort them out, and parents believe that the schools should sort them out.

Hopefully this National Institute for Political Correctness (or civil discourse), will be able to resolve this problem, or at least minimise it to a certain extent.
I think that this will take time though, because the next incident that happens, won't have everyone pointing to this institute and asking "where were you when this was happening?"
My guess is that their answer will always be "we are still researching!" Laughing
deanhills
menino wrote:
My guess is that their answer will always be "we are still researching!" Laughing
Right. I probably should feel happy for academics who have majors in Political Science who may have access to some research funding as well as employment opportunities for some as Universities are seriously short of research funding. But whether it will be helpful to avoid shootings in future, I doubt that. Ocalhoun said it all. People instead may become anarchists in response and feel like ramming their planes into IRS buildings or shooting at people.

I can just imagine that this Institute will be promoting more gun control as well.
liljp617
Want to lessen the hate between political opponents? Then build a National Institute of Bring In More Than Two Political Parties. Give people some damn options in the middle. But we know hell will freeze over before that happens.

As an aside, I'm fairly skeptical that this building will cause people to want to fly planes into the IRS...let's be realistic Wink
deanhills
liljp617 wrote:
Want to lessen the hate between political opponents? Then build a National Institute of Bring In More Than Two Political Parties. Give people some damn options in the middle. But we know hell will freeze over before that happens.

As an aside, I'm fairly skeptical that this building will cause people to want to fly planes into the IRS...let's be realistic Wink
When people fly into buildings such as the guy did with the IRS (I think a year ago), then that is for no real logical reason, more like an extreme act of frustration. I was trying to show that this may be one of those facilitators that get people to feel severely frustrated, and maybe even set them off. For example the shooting in Tucson.

I agree with you that a great help to avoid incidences like these could be more options with regard to political parties, the whole system needs changing. The two political parties also have a dismal selection of candidates, I have not seen any excellent candidates in quite a long while. Have you? They all seem to fit a very basic template. Have a really clean background that can sustain vigorous scrutiny by the media.
standready
The government loves to waste money. After all, they can always print more! Now to appoint several cronies to director positions and give them six figure salaries for doing/solving nothing.

I'm with ocalhoun on feeling like an anarchist.
deanhills
standready wrote:
The government loves to waste money. After all, they can always print more! Now to appoint several cronies to director positions and give them six figure salaries for doing/solving nothing.

I'm with ocalhoun on feeling like an anarchist.
I feel that way at my place of work as well. There always seems to be a pattern with a new broom that has been appointed to sweep things clean. He brings all his friends in at six figure salaries made possible by nixing as many "unnecessary" 3-digit salary jobs as the person could get away with.
Dialogist
Nice to see "we have a gun problem" got yet another nice new shiny name.
deanhills
Dialogist wrote:
Nice to see "we have a gun problem" got yet another nice new shiny name.
Right. Focus is probably going to be on guns as the problem instead of people who are out of control. By the way, what other shiny names are there?
Dialogist
deanhills wrote:

By the way, what other shiny names are there?


Hip Hop, Music, Video Games, Movies, Satanism, Drugs, Immigration, Recession, Poverty, Social Media, Counter Culture, Political Discourse etc. And in the case in question, Literature.

Anything really, that diverts attention away from the simple realistic ideology that anyone who isn't a member of the armed services, probably shouldn't have a firearm, let alone a permit. The police in the UK don't even feel the need for firearms. The argument against this is often "oh well Brits are easily restrained" or similar irony that belies the fact that swat units and armed police there are only called in the comparatively rare (population ratio be damned) event that the assailant is actually armed. In the case of school and similar public lone-gun man massacres, if it is illegal for a patron to possess a bomb, how exactly is a semi-automatic weapon with no restriction on ammo permissible? Oh, you're a hunter? You like killing defenseless animals? My heart bleeds, find a new stress-ball hobby. I dunno, take up kick boxing or something. An embargo on the level of a nation-wide weapons amnesty should be enforced on some 1940s Berlin fascist dictatorship whereby every home is visited and every weapon seized. I want to see it on the scale of prohibition whereby alcohol was a contraband controlled substance that you were legally not permitted to have. This isn't legal precedence at all and is politically doable via a prop to the constitution. The same way homosexual marriage or separation from church and state was. We need to evolve is what I am telling you.

You could start by taxing the weapon permit holder heavily to subsidize gas inflation until they are all targeted and visited by Men In Black and items are seized. You could declare the firearm a federal offense with a maximum penalty similar to what the shoe bombers received for conspiring to commit terror acts. In short for all of the shiny new names you give "gun control" the "control" suffix is the actual problem. They shouldn't be controlled, they should be confiscated. You'll never get them all but you cut that figure into half instantly as opposed to having them legal. It's currently constitutional to own a firearm (Second Amendment) and therefore I dare say that is patriotic to have a firearm. This is the problem. A kid playing violent video games or listening to Marilyn Manson cannot open fire on his classmates if there's no gun in the shoebox on top of daddy's closet. There's something perversely repugnant about having a lethal killing device in a home you raise your kids in anyway and if it is merely to protect against armed intruders, guess what? Guns beget guns and I'm still pointing the finger in the right direction. Either get all gestapo on the gun issue or tax permit holders out of the ass and charge non permit holders with the maximum penalty. I prefer the former option and I've never had a problem with a temporary police state being inducted to prevent a permanent one from being an eternal necessity.
ocalhoun
Dialogist wrote:

Anything really, that diverts attention away from the simple realistic ideology that anyone who isn't a member of the armed services, probably shouldn't have a firearm, let alone a permit.

Why should the government have a monopoly on the use of force?
Quote:
The police in the UK don't even feel the need for firearms. The argument against this is often "oh well Brits are easily restrained" or similar irony that belies the fact that swat units and armed police there are only called in the comparatively rare (population ratio be damned) event that the assailant is actually armed.

UK =/= US
All in favor of disarming the police though.
Then, power lies with the people, not with the government.
(Too many cases of people getting shot/tasered who should not have been.)
Quote:
In the case of school and similar public lone-gun man massacres, if it is illegal for a patron to possess a bomb, how exactly is a semi-automatic weapon with no restriction on ammo permissible?

It's permissible because lone-gunman shooting sprees are extremely rare.
It's not worth disarming millions in order to protect a dozen.
Quote:
Oh, you're a hunter?

Occasionally, yes. Also a hiker.
My main bear-defense (.45 with 13rd mag) would be illegal under most restricted-capacity laws.
Quote:
You like killing defenseless animals?

Not particularly, but I enjoy eating them, as I suspect you do as well.
Quote:
My heart bleeds,

Is this where the term 'bleeding heart liberal' comes from? ^.^
Quote:
find a new stress-ball hobby. I dunno, take up kick boxing or something.

How about, I choose my own hobbies, and you can mind your own business.
Quote:
An embargo on the level of a nation-wide weapons amnesty should be enforced on some 1940s Berlin fascist dictatorship whereby every home is visited and every weapon seized.

I'm proud of you. Most anti-gun nuts won't admit this.
Quote:
I want to see it on the scale of prohibition whereby alcohol was a contraband controlled substance that you were legally not permitted to have.

Because the prohibition worked so well?
Quote:
This isn't legal precedence at all and is politically doable via a prop to the constitution. The same way homosexual marriage or separation from church and state was.

Why force it on people who don't want it?
You want a country with no guns, move to the UK.
Quote:
We need to evolve is what I am telling you.

Evolve into what? Weak, helpless, submissive subjects of the state?
Quote:

You could start by taxing the weapon permit holder heavily to subsidize gas inflation until they are all targeted and visited by Men In Black and items are seized.

This may shock you, but in some states that value freedom, you don't need a permit to own a gun... and in some you don't even need a permit to carry it, concealed or no.
Quote:
You could declare the firearm a federal offense with a maximum penalty similar to what the shoe bombers received for conspiring to commit terror acts.

*sigh*
So, people who defend themselves, hunters, target shooters, collectors... they're all terrorists now?
Quote:
In short for all of the shiny new names you give "gun control" the "control" suffix is the actual problem. They shouldn't be controlled, they should be confiscated. You'll never get them all but you cut that figure into half instantly as opposed to having them legal.

Again, I'm proud of you. Few anti-gun nuts will admit this.
Quote:
It's currently constitutional to own a firearm (Second Amendment) and therefore I dare say that is patriotic to have a firearm. This is the problem.

This is not a problem. The right was given to us for a reason, and that reason has not become invalid.
Quote:
A kid playing violent video games or listening to Marilyn Manson cannot open fire on his classmates if there's no gun in the shoebox on top of daddy's closet.

This is not a major threat. It is very rare, and does not justify the banning and confiscation of all firearms.
Quote:
There's something perversely repugnant about having a lethal killing device in a home you raise your kids in anyway

No, there's not.
If an armed invader comes into your house, what will you do? Call the police?
What will they bring? Lethal killing devices.
In either case, you're still relying on deadly force to protect your family... Just in one case you've got the guts to do it yourself. (And not rely on the police to do it - after all, they have no mandate to protect you, they should not be forced to do so unnecessarily.)
Quote:
and if it is merely to protect against armed intruders, guess what? Guns beget guns

Actually, factories beget guns.
The more you know...
Quote:
and I'm still pointing the finger in the right direction.

Blaming the legal gun owner defending his own?
That's your idea of pointing the finger in the right direction?
Quote:
Either get all gestapo on the gun issue or tax permit holders out of the ass and charge non permit holders with the maximum penalty. I prefer the former option and I've never had a problem with a temporary police state being inducted to prevent a permanent one from being an eternal necessity.

There's no such thing as a temporary police state.
Once the government has power, it usually doesn't relinquish that power.
(And why does it not surprise me that you have no problem with a police state?
I'd rather have no police state at all.)


My plan for gun control:
For all people who are sane, adult, and haven't been convicted of a violent crime in the last 20 years: Allowed to own and carry any class of weapon used by the police (to include all the police - SWAT teams included). If the police feel the need to carry a given weapon to deal with the populace, then citizens should be able to use the same weapons for the same purposes.


...Yeah... I know, I got trolled.
Dialogist
ocalhoun wrote:

Why should the government have a monopoly on the use of force?


Because the whole idea of a government is that it governs. Why shouldn't everybody in the army be a captain? Why shouldn't everyone be president? Why shouldn't everyone be equal? Because equal power is a socialist fairy-tale that leads to outright communism and then fascism in just about every single country historically that has employed Marxist ideals that you can name. The only one that has bucked the trend is Venezuela because Hugo Chavez is smart enough to lead by benevolent dictatorship and not concede power to every tom, dick and harry with a che guevara t shirt. You socialist libertarian revolutionary anarchists are history-shy deluded hypocrites and the contents of this post will show you exactly why that is.

ocalhoun wrote:

Then, power lies with the people, not with the government.


Actually that's the way it already is, and it is a sad state of affairs. The people have too much power. Namely, the right to impersonally murder without even laying a hand on a person. This is the difference between the UK and the US. In the UK, you need to be able to handle yourself to take a man's life. In the US, you just need to know where your dad hides his gun. The police are bound by procedure, regulation and law. What is the gang member bound by? He's got a gun, he's clint eastwood. Who does he answer to? The chain of command that you envisage? The people? Or the police? Its amusing how anarchists hate the idea of police force until somebody points a gun at them. But like the old line goes, "A Conservative is a Liberal who's been mugged".

ocalhoun wrote:

It's permissible because lone-gunman shooting sprees are extremely rare.
It's not worth disarming millions in order to protect a dozen.


Congrats on the worst argument I've ever read on here. For 1) They are about as "rare" as happening every 3 years for the past 50 and for 2) What possible value is there in arming anyone? This is absolute nonsense. Give me one positive for everyone being armed and I'll give you a positive for a despot government replacing despot government (ring any bells? You know like every single revolution that there's ever been). Even pretending to find positives in everyone having easy means to murder is a fool's errand of the highest order. You should be literally ashamed of yourself for holding mankind (and indeed freedom itself) back with malignant miasma like that. If everyone thought like you, they'd be no liberals. Just a bunch of fascists with guns (again, sound familiar?) Even Orwell saw the irony in your point of view. Especially Orwell, in fact. Read Animal Farm to see what's in store for you and that extremist left-wing nonsense. Would you like a short synopsis? Ok. It never works. You overthrow the government and become worse than the one you overthrew because you took the position by force and need force to maintain it because you've already set a precedent for how it is done, then of course, your tyranny needs overthrowing by another bunch of idealistic hopefuls who only have your example to lead by so they do the same thing. Only problem is, because the new government is a bunch of guerrillas, they need some heavy artillery to overthrow them so the task gets even more bloody every time until you wake up one day and realize that you live in Cuba or Korea and think, damn, why didn't we just leave it alone in the first place. We had rights, now we are just a blood stained nation of despots and tyrants playing musical chairs with power. Left becomes the right and right becomes the left (until next time, when they switch again) Every single time, without fail. Show me a revolution that has ever worked and I'll show you a peaceful communist country.

ocalhoun wrote:

Occasionally, yes. Also a hiker.
My main bear-defense (.45 with 13rd mag) would be illegal under most restricted-capacity laws.


You're the guy who built a new religion worshipping horses right? haha. This is what I'm talking about with the hypocrisy. If you have a need to kill (the not-so cute) animals and you don't use hand to hand combat or live in some tribe where food is hard to come by, then you're a pussy. And I'll tell you that directly to your face with your gun pointed at mine. You have absolutely no excuse for murdering for giggles. None. If you find yourself hiking and in danger of bear attacks, that's because the bear is bigger and stronger than you. There's nothing wrong with that. You were given a brain and an agile maneuverable frame. If you need a gun to outwit a bear then all is already lost intellectually anyway. 2011 and we're still doing this Elmer Fudd shit? It beggers belief, it really does.

ocalhoun wrote:

Not particularly, but I enjoy eating them, as I suspect you do as well.


Personally I think its an unavoidable trait of the carnivore to need meat for a healthy constitution. I do enjoy a good meal like all mammals do. I don't subscribe to vegetarianism because I don't agree with abortion, on the same premise that if the reluctance to eat meat is reluctance to take a life then nobody needs to remind them that plants are alive too. But they can't sense pain. Hmm, yet lean to the sunlight and sway when you water them. I do eat meat, but that's a world away from running about the country side gunning down beautiful animals like deer and bear because my penis is too small to reassure me of the effectuate of my machismo.

ocalhoun wrote:

Is this where the term 'bleeding heart liberal' comes from?


I'm conservative. Remember this argument is about me recommending the government use the forces our taxes pay for to keep us safe to root out marshal law and extremist johnny come lawmaker and actually keep us safe for once. Arming the entire country and belittling power is madness. It's also suicide. If you lose, you die. If you win, you kill and then die later when you're killed by the theme you've set. So what'll be? Innocent death or guilty death spawning a revolution of deaths (they are called revolutions because they have a habit or revolving back in your face).

ocalhoun wrote:

How about, I choose my own hobbies, and you can mind your own business.


How about, I wasn't even talking to or about you, yet you took it upon yourself to break apart my post, line by line, flame baiting and getting testy and then even had the nerve to call me a "troll". Is there something mentally deficient about you? Besides your genitalia anxiety? Oh is this why you love horses? Because they are hung? I get it now. You need a bunch of new hobbies. Start with replacing your politics hobby. Try kick boxing instead. Try kick boxing a bear! Now that would be impressive. If you kill it, I'll personally shake your hand. Try kick boxing a horse. Again, if you win, I'll call you "a hunter" myself. Pulling a trigger and calling yourself a hunter. That's like throwing a brick at Mike Tyson from a moving car and calling yourself a fighter.

ocalhoun wrote:

I'm proud of you. Most anti-gun nuts won't admit this.


The means to power is the power to be mean. But you only need a piece of that power to use that power for peace. If I saw a group of demonstrators smashing up public property and starting fires and riots, I'd use more than a hose. They wouldn't do that again. Oh but we use hoses, and they do it every day. Bang up job fellas. And what are they protesting over in the first place? Usually fascist-lite governments that stole power by once claiming to be liberal.

ocalhoun wrote:

Because the prohibition worked so well?


The only place you could buy alcohol was from the mafia (which at the time was controlled by the government), so yeah, it worked splendidly.

ocalhoun wrote:

Why force it on people who don't want it?
You want a country with no guns, move to the UK.


There's guns in the UK, there's just not one in nearly every home and it not permitted by the constitution so gun ownership is surprisingly low and so is the gun crime rate and so the regular police don't need to carry firearms. I don't really need to say anymore about that. It speaks for itself. The question is, why should somebody's dad feel the need to get a gun just because everyone else has one even though he really disapproves of them and only has one because "It's better to have a gun and not need one than to need one and not have one" is unfortunately quite logical to him? This is a gross imposition on him and me. Not the other way around. Most rational people don't like killing things or being near or in possession of things that do kill things. Yet we have the 20% who fear monger everyone into having one. How about they just shoot themselves and we can change the constitution to practice what it preaches about freedom and liberty and get us out of this primitive intellectual stone age that the rest of the world quite rightly mocks us for. Bunch of knuckle draggers with guns. Is there anything more frightening or imposing on those people who can actually string two words together?

ocalhoun wrote:

Evolve into what? Weak, helpless, submissive subjects of the state?


You're either a subject of a state (which works, whether you like it or not) or you are the state, subjecting submissives to acknowledge it. Somebody has to rule and they have to rule by power because they have to control the army and the police and they have to control the laws and punish crimes. These are non negotiable. I really wish you'd recognize this. You need to take people's money, you need to tax them or your country fails. I really wish you'd recognize this too. If you combat them, you will have overthrow them because they know it will fail without you being a subject of it. I really wish you'd recognize this too. If you succeed in overthrowing it, you become it. Please just recognize that if nothing else and put this futile "anarchist" nonsense to bed once and for all.

ocalhoun wrote:

This may shock you, but in some states that value freedom, you don't need a permit to own a gun... and in some you don't even need a permit to carry it, concealed or no.


Palestine. Bring the kids for a vacation. All states value freedom. The contention is what the government regards as freedom and what the general public regard as freedom.

ocalhoun wrote:

*sigh*
So, people who defend themselves, hunters, target shooters, collectors... they're all terrorists now?


I prefer the term "Ass holes". Defending themselves?!? Against Bambi? You're kidding me right? When Clay pigeons attack? They have mental problems, plain and simple. They would not get over my threshold. I wouldn't give them house-room. They are human time-bombs waiting to erupt any minute and slaughter all their coworkers. If you go out killing, and you enjoy it, there is something very seriously amiss with you.

ocalhoun wrote:

This is not a problem. The right was given to us for a reason, and that reason has not become invalid.


What was this reason? And how has not become invalid. Anything short of "we've been overrun by dinosaurs" and I'm gonna have to call bs on that.

ocalhoun wrote:

This is not a major threat. It is very rare, and does not justify the banning and confiscation of all firearms.


Every year, sometimes twice, three times a year, some clown shoots his wife and kids (and always himself just after), every couple of years, some kid shoots up his school. Not a year goes by without some lunatic letting off rounds in public. It is not very rare at all. It's not even rare. And these are headlining grabbing incidents, the millions that go unreported do just that. I wish you'd research what you're talking about. It would save a lot of time.

http://www.neahin.org/programs/schoolsafety/gunsafety/statistics.htm

This is the biggest most foremost problem in america today. It needs addressing. I couldn't give two hoots about what a "hunter" wants. I care about 80 people dying A DAY from guns in the US. I care the gun crime rate being 15 times higher than any other country in the world, and I care most about it being legal.

ocalhoun wrote:

No, there's not.
If an armed invader comes into your house, what will you do? Call the police? What will they bring? Lethal killing devices. In either case, you're still relying on deadly force to protect your family... Just in one case you've got the guts to do it yourself. (And not rely on the police to do it - after all, they have no mandate to protect you, they should not be forced to do so unnecessarily.)


Not if I don't have a gun, which I do not and never will have. The scant consolation here, is that if a man has a gun with the intent to use it on me warranting my murdering of him, then he's killing me anyway. I can die a murderer or an innocent party. I've already made my choice. I sit down. You go out blasting. Good for you. Won't see you in hell.

ocalhoun wrote:

Actually, factories beget guns.
The more you know...


You've just proved that guns beget guns just as violence begets violence and fear begets fear. The eyes of fear buy guns. The eyes of love want them gone completely. Only a devil makes a case for a gun. They are not needed to love people and progress as a race of humans. They are needed to stay in this neanderthal rut for eternity. You know you could stand and shoot China men for the duration of your whole life who are trying to hug you and still not get them all. That consoles me when I read your blood thirsty posts condoning killing, fear and hate.

ocalhoun wrote:

Blaming the legal gun owner defending his own?
That's your idea of pointing the finger in the right direction?


You are not "defending" anything at all. You're cowards. Just admit it. lol, like buying the gun didn't already.

Quote:

There's no such thing as a temporary police state.
Once the government has power, it usually doesn't relinquish that power.
(And why does it not surprise me that you have no problem with a police state? I'd rather have no police state at all.)


You've never set foot in a police state so you have no idea what you're talking about. I've lived in one, by curfew, and it turned so after dark. That is a temporary police state that was rustic and scenic by day. You'd remove the police? haha!

Convo = done. Don't respond to me, I promise I won't read it. I have better things to do with my life, like pick my nose. Like you want to give random jackasses on the street sub machine guns and tear gas and a swat units and remove all the police. This the level I've stooped to. Replying to crap like this.

ocalhoun wrote:

...Yeah... I know, I got trolled.


Tell yourself whatever you like, hunter. You are the troll in this scenario. I never said boo to you.
deanhills
Dialogist wrote:
There's something perversely repugnant about having a lethal killing device in a home you raise your kids in anyway and if it is merely to protect against armed intruders, guess what? Guns beget guns and I'm still pointing the finger in the right direction. Either get all gestapo on the gun issue or tax permit holders out of the ass and charge non permit holders with the maximum penalty. I prefer the former option and I've never had a problem with a temporary police state being inducted to prevent a permanent one from being an eternal necessity.
I don't agree. If you are going to make the gun the problem instead of the people who are using it, then you won't be able to teach your children to deal with guns in a responsible manner. In my opinion they should be taught all the things they need to know about guns, why it should be locked up in a safe place, how to handle the gun, and when they are ready for it, how to shoot. If children are taught that guns are there for their safety and for self-defence, not for attacking others, then it will be much more constructive than pretending that there should be no guns, and them never really learning what guns are about.

There are also many other ways to kill people than only guns. One can use bows and arrows, knives, pea shooters, etc. so are we now going to "confiscate" all of those as well, and where will it all end?
Dialogist
deanhills wrote:

There are also many other ways to kill people than only guns. One can use bows and arrows, knives, pea shooters, etc. so are we now going to "confiscate" all of those as well, and where will it all end?


Well, I'd merely start with the hypothesis that one less gun and one less person dies a day in the US and we'll see if that extrapolates. I'm under the assumption that no guns means nobody gets shot. Silly, I know. Where will it all end? Gee, I dunno. I was thinking along the lines of something preposterous like civilized humanity. Madness, isn't it? You're probably correct though, indoctrinate the child in gun arts. After all, children are the future. Teach them well and let them lead the way.

Personally I think if you value your right to bare arms you should buy a vest and bare your arms like that. An animal senses fear, a coward senses lack of it. If you are of the paranoid, fearful, faithless nature, buy a vest with reinforced steel lining. Never leave your house. I mean where does it all end? Is that lock on your door really big enough?
deanhills
Dialogist wrote:
Well, I'd merely start with the hypothesis that one less gun and one less person dies a day in the US and we'll see if that extrapolates.

I'm under the assumption that no guns means nobody gets shot. Silly, I know.
Right, that does sound bizarre especially coming from a logical thinker like you. Guns will never go away, they have been with us for ages. I grew up with guns in the house, but my dad did it the responsible way. I never felt fearful of guns. All of us were carefully coached by him as to the safety aspects of using guns. They were always stored out of sight and in good hiding places. The rifle and hand guns were hidden in different places. The guns were never loaded, and the ammunition always stored in a separate place. My dad cleaned the guns now and then, but apart from target practice at the local rifle range, never had to use the guns in his life time to kill either humans or animals. I don't own a gun as I don't think there is a need for me to own one. I have not investigated this, but I don't think I would be able to keep a gun in the UAE. However, if I would have a lifestyle of Ocalhoun's I would get a gun.

Dialogist wrote:
You're probably correct though, indoctrinate the child in gun arts. After all, children are the future. Teach them well and let them lead the way.
Apologies if it would seem that I was talking about indoctrinating, I meant education, not indoctrination. I was educated in the use of guns, enough to make my own decision not to have a gun around just for the sake of having a gun. This is what I meant. For people to be educated that it is a tool, and if one owns this tool, to be thoroughly coached in its use, maintenance and safe keeping. Not to be afraid of guns, but to respect the use of guns. I think the danger is more about lack of education about using guns, than the guns themselves.

Dialogist wrote:
Personally I think if you value your right to bare arms you should buy a vest and bare your arms like that. An animal senses fear, a coward senses lack of it. If you are of the paranoid, fearful, faithless nature, buy a vest with reinforced steel lining. Never leave your house. I mean where does it all end? Is that lock on your door really big enough?
This is wrong. I agree to the extent that some people are not using guns right, but then it may be because there is something wrong with them. It is not the gun they are holding in their hand that is the problem, the problem is in their head.
Bikerman
LOL...this argument is SOOOO partial it is untrue.
Guns are designed for one thing - to kill. They aren't designed to do the washing-up, or to apply paint to awkward places.
Now, of course a gun can be used to kill other things than humans. So if people want to use the gun to kill animals in the 'hunt' then OK - let them be licensed to use the gun in that manner. The same argument applies to target shooting. Keep the guns at the shooting club or the local police station. The hunter can then get the gun for his hunting trip or clay-pidgeon competition.

This 'argument' that 'the gun isn't the problem, it's the user' is facile. The same argument means that people should be free to own explosives, plutonium and any other dangerous materials.
It isn't the plutonium in a nuclear bomb that kills people - it is the person who explodes the bomb.

The simple fact is that many people are mentally ill - estimates would put it around 1/4 of the US population.
http://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/publications/the-numbers-count-mental-disorders-in-america/index.shtml

Making guns widely available means that they will inevitably end up in the hands of mentally ill people.
Yoiu might think that is sensible,,,,I don't.
menino
Bikerman wrote:
This 'argument' that 'the gun isn't the problem, it's the user' is facile. The same argument means that people should be free to own explosives, plutonium and any other dangerous materials.
It isn't the plutonium in a nuclear bomb that kills people - it is the person who explodes the bomb.


I agree with you Bikerman, but I think the actual simili is "Guns don't kill people... people do!"

People will literally find tooth and nail to kill someone else... and that's the scary part.

Actually scarier than that is people using their tongues... and their minds to coersce people to kill other people.... and sometime back... even use their underwear......
deanhills
Bikerman wrote:
Making guns widely available means that they will inevitably end up in the hands of mentally ill people. Yoiu might think that is sensible,,,,I don't.
Great. Then we will have to confiscate everything from human beings that can potentially be harmful to them, as they would do when we are screened before we are boarding an airplane? Nothing with sharp edges, no knives, forks, nail files, liquids that could be used to make bombs, cell phones that can activate bombs, etc. etc. Of course all nuclear bombs are being used all the time to kill others of course! Twisted Evil If you buy a box of matches, do you use it to set fire to a house, or do you keep it in a safe place?

I am almost certain if there were a scientific enquiry into gun ownership and whether the intent with owning the gun is solely to kill others that most of the gun owners would say that they own a gun in order to defend themselves in the rare event of an invasion in their home. I agree with you that ultimately a gun does kill, but it is the person who pulls the trigger who does the killing. And it is the extent to which that person is educated and trained that will determine how the gun will be used.

To my mind there is much more harm coming from all those blood thirsty movies that children get to be brainwashed with, in which people get even with one another by simply killing one another. Than the actual guns themselves. If you take the guns away, no doubt there will be other tools that can be used to kill one another. Ironically, if we can deal successfully with the need to kill one another, there will be less guns around. But as long as killing is around, I believe everyone should have the right to defend themselves. There should however be rules in place with regard to ownership of guns, as there are currently.
watersoul
Sorry for the old stats from UN office on Drugs and Crime but 1999 was the latest I could find. The previous years show similar figures though.

(1999) Rates of total recorded intentional homicides with a firearm per 100,000 population:

England & Wales - 0.12
US - 2.97
Switzerland - 1.01

(1999) Rates of intentional homicides with any weapon per 100,000 population:

England & Wales - 1.45
US - 4.55
Switzerland - 1.25

Looking at those different figures it would appear that comparing England & Wales (massively restricted gun control) against the US and Switzerland (high gun ownership), as probably expected, the gun deaths are higher in the US and Switzerland.

Gun Ownership per 100 people by country:

England & Wales - 6.2
US - 88.8
Switzerland - 45.7

There does seem to be a relationship between number of privately held guns and number of gun homicides, but even when you just look at the 'any weapon' homicide rates, the US does seem to appear slightly more murderous in a general way Shocked

I do agree that the person who uses the weapon always causes the killing, although some restrictions on who is permitted to own a gun are obviously sensible, such as the case of convicted robbers or known mental health issues.
I shall also however continue to search for reliable knife death statistics as it could be interesting to see how the UK compares with other countries...my gut instinct tells me we'll be higher up in the rankings there.
deanhills
I've added South Africa and Canada to the stat that includes fire arms (I could not tie up the stats "with any weapon":

watersoul wrote:
Sorry for the old stats from UN office on Drugs and Crime but 1999 was the latest I could find. The previous years show similar figures though.

(1999) Rates of total recorded intentional homicides with a firearm per 100,000 population:

England & Wales - 0.12
US - 2.97
Switzerland - 1.01
South Africa - 80.05
Canada - 0.54
I don't however interpret this as saying that guns are responsible for the statistics. People are killing people and they are using guns to kill one another with, would be closer to the truth for me. Take guns away in South Africa tomorrow, and they will find different tools to kill one another with for sure. And those who have to defend themselves against being killed, would find other tools as well. Most people live behind high walls with razor or electric wires, and on top of that subscribe to security systems and have guns to defend themselves with. Violence has been around in South Africa for centuries and centuries. Even before guns have been introduced.
watersoul
deanhills wrote:
I don't however interpret this as saying that guns are responsible for the statistics. People are killing people and they are using guns to kill one another with...


Yep, I'd agree with that to a certain extent but South Africa compared to most European countries (for example) is almost like apples and oranges. The stats don't take into account the social problems which already exist in each country.

It's why I said:
Quote:
I do agree that the person who uses the weapon always causes the killing

and:
Quote:
I shall also however continue to search for reliable knife death statistics as it could be interesting to see how the UK compares with other countries...my gut instinct tells me we'll be higher up in the rankings there.


It is an unusual situation with firearms though due to the ease of a deadly repeated trigger pull.
Myself, I legally own a high powered fast loading crossbow and use it for target practice sport, and hunting small game such as rabbits, which I will skin/gut/cook and eat while camping on farmers land who've given me permission to do this. I've personally not heard of any crossbow massacres in the UK and although the weapon is deadly (powerful enough to go completely through a rabbit, and I assume a human chest) it's probably because it takes a good 10 seconds to reload that they are not the preferred choice of rage filled/psycho murderers?
Now knives on the other hand are used far more often to kill in the UK and probably in 'moments of madness' as they are conveniently carried in a pocket (like hand guns) so are easily pulled out in an angry confrontation.
My rather large crossbow could not be carried as casually as a knife or a hand gun so would not offer the same convenience in a potential killing situation. As such, they do not contribute much to the murder rate in my country and do not require a license.

I'm sure there are many reasons for the high firearms murder rates in different countries, but we surely cannot deny the possibility that availability/number of privately held weapons is related to the number of murders committed?

*Edit* As a sidenote, I'm pretty sure I could obtain a shotgun and/or rifle licence if I wanted to. I'm of good legal standing having been enhanced CRB checked many times through work, with access to land for shooting (plus permission from the owner), and I could join the local shooting club. I'm just not that inspired enough to jump through all the hoops to obtain the weapon. OK, if gun ownership/violence was high here I probably would, but it's not so I don't see the need. I do actually know a few paranoid Americans who argue (I think crazily) that it makes me an easy victim of any potential future 'government oppression' but hey, which are the first doors the state would knock on if we became a land of tyranny? All the registered gun owners for sure!
deanhills
watersoul wrote:
I've personally not heard of any crossbow massacres in the UK
Laughing ..... now that was quite funny to visualize.
watersoul wrote:
and although the weapon is deadly (powerful enough to go completely through a rabbit, and I assume a human chest) it's probably because it takes a good 10 seconds to reload that they are not the preferred choice of rage filled/psycho murderers?
James Bond's girlfriend in the movie "For your eyes only" (the one with the scuba-diving Greek beauty in it) was quite good with bows and arrows.
watersoul wrote:
Now knives on the other hand are used far more often to kill in the UK and probably in 'moments of madness' as they are conveniently carried in a pocket (like hand guns) so are easily pulled out in an angry confrontation.
There is also an art to using a knife as a weapon.
watersoul wrote:
I'm sure there are many reasons for the high firearms murder rates in different countries, but we surely cannot deny the possibility that availability/number of privately held weapons is related to the number of murders committed?
I found the following interesting information on a Website about Canadian gun legislation:
Quote:
Here's what it looks like in some other Commonwealth countries:

■Australia has banned most firearms, is now banning swords and machetes, and is considering a ban on crossbows!
■The United Kingdom bans all handguns and semi-automatic (or pump-action) centerfire long-guns, and is considering a ban on knives with points!
■New Zealand's web page suggests that their gun laws are about the same as Canada's.
■South Africa, Jamaica, and Zimbabwe have all passed extremely restrictive gun laws, and crime has soared in all of these since their passage.

None of these gun laws have reduced crime. What's more, as noted above, it was the UK Conservative Party that started the most recent wave of gun bans in Britain. Britain's Olympic shooters are forced to train in Switzerland because their sport is banned in their home country.
ocalhoun
Bikerman wrote:

This 'argument' that 'the gun isn't the problem, it's the user' is facile. The same argument means that people should be free to own explosives, plutonium and any other dangerous materials.
It isn't the plutonium in a nuclear bomb that kills people - it is the person who explodes the bomb.

And yet, completely dis-empowering the populace doesn't seem wise.
While the power inherent in a nuclear bomb obviously isn't appropriate for individuals, there is a level of power that is appropriate for individuals... And it's my opinion that the power inherent in most firearms is within that appropriate level of power.
Dialogist wrote:
ocalhoun wrote:

Why should the government have a monopoly on the use of force?


Because the whole idea of a government is that it governs. Why shouldn't everybody in the army be a captain? Why shouldn't everyone be president? Why shouldn't everyone be equal?

People SHOULD be equal. And have equal power.
The ideal government is no government at all, with everyone being equal and having equal power, deciding their own affairs, and not interfering with others. (Not possible, of course, but we can work towards it.)
Quote:
Because equal power is a socialist fairy-tale that leads to outright communism and then fascism in just about every single country historically that has employed Marxist ideals that you can name. The only one that has bucked the trend is Venezuela because Hugo Chavez is smart enough to lead by benevolent dictatorship and not concede power to every tom, dick and harry with a che guevara t shirt.

Since when are pro-gun people communists?
Quote:
You socialist libertarian revolutionary anarchists are history-shy deluded hypocrites and the contents of this post will show you exactly why that is.

Libertarians and anarchists are usually pretty close...
But 'socialist libertarian' is pretty much a contradiction of terms.

And for the record, I'm not feeling particularly revolutionary just yet. For now, I'm still a reformer, not a revolutionary, because I think the government can still be fixed by legal, peaceful methods.
Quote:

ocalhoun wrote:

Then, power lies with the people, not with the government.


Actually that's the way it already is, and it is a sad state of affairs. The people have too much power.

There's no such thing as the people having too much power.
Quote:
Namely, the right to impersonally murder without even laying a hand on a person. This is the difference between the UK and the US. In the UK, you need to be able to handle yourself to take a man's life. In the US, you just need to know where your dad hides his gun.

So, murdering is fine, as long as you do it skillfully, with your bare hands?
Please tell me more about this strange philosophy...
Quote:
The police are bound by procedure, regulation and law. What is the gang member bound by? He's got a gun, he's clint eastwood. Who does he answer to? The chain of command that you envisage? The people? Or the police?

He answers to himself.
As every free man should.
Quote:
Its amusing how anarchists hate the idea of police force until somebody points a gun at them. But like the old line goes, "A Conservative is a Liberal who's been mugged".

So, your theory is that I would become a gun-control advocate if somebody pointed a gun at me?
Odd theory.
If I had problems with being threatened by people with guns, I would want more freedom to defend myself.
(I take the responsibility for my safety to be a personal responsibility. I'm responsible for my safety, not society.)
Quote:

ocalhoun wrote:

It's permissible because lone-gunman shooting sprees are extremely rare.
It's not worth disarming millions in order to protect a dozen.


Congrats on the worst argument I've ever read on here. For 1) They are about as "rare" as happening every 3 years for the past 50

That's pretty rare.
Quote:
and for 2) What possible value is there in arming anyone? This is absolute nonsense. Give me one positive for everyone being armed

1- (all) People (even the weak ones) can defend themselves effectively from a variety of threats.
2- People can hunt their own food.
3- People can enjoy shooting as a fun activity, or collect rare or interesting guns as a hobby.
4- People can be prepared to resist and possibly overthrow an oppressive government.
5- People can be prepared for disaster situations that may require self-defense or hunting.
6- People can practice shooting for any of the above reasons - and a populace that already knows how to shoot well has historically been a great asset in war.
Quote:
and I'll give you a positive for a despot government replacing despot government (ring any bells? You know like every single revolution that there's ever been).

A- Revolution was only one of the six reasons I gave.
B- Not every revolution there's ever been has replaced the old government with a despot. Some revolutions replace a despot with a much better government.
Quote:
Even pretending to find positives in everyone having easy means to murder is a fool's errand of the highest order. You should be literally ashamed of yourself for holding mankind (and indeed freedom itself) back with malignant miasma like that.

Mankind is generally horrible. It needs no holding back to be this way.
Quote:
If everyone thought like you, they'd be no liberals.

Yeah... if everyone thought like me, they'd all be libertarians.
Quote:
Just a bunch of fascists with guns (again, sound familiar?)

No, doesn't sound familiar.
What does 'fascists with guns' refer to?
And may I point out that your advocating of a police state, your insistence that only the government should have power, and your disdain of socialists, communists, and anarchists makes you sound rather fascist yourself?
Quote:
Even Orwell saw the irony in your point of view. Especially Orwell, in fact. Read Animal Farm

I have read it.
Didn't notice much in it about guns though.
Quote:
to see what's in store for you and that extremist left-wing nonsense.

Ha!
Handfleisch calls me far-right... Dialogist calls me far-left. ^.^
Which one is correct?
(Hint: libertarian/anarchist is neither left nor right.)
Quote:
Would you like a short synopsis? Ok. It never works. You overthrow the government and become worse than the one you overthrew because you took the position by force and need force to maintain it because you've already set a precedent for how it is done, then of course, your tyranny needs overthrowing by another bunch of idealistic hopefuls who only have your example to lead by so they do the same thing. Only problem is, because the new government is a bunch of guerrillas, they need some heavy artillery to overthrow them so the task gets even more bloody every time until you wake up one day and realize that you live in Cuba or Korea and think, damn, why didn't we just leave it alone in the first place. We had rights, now we are just a blood stained nation of despots and tyrants playing musical chairs with power.

Again, may I remind you that not every revolution happens this way?
Sometimes, the new government is much better than the old one.
Quote:
Left becomes the right and right becomes the left (until next time, when they switch again) Every single time, without fail. Show me a revolution that has ever worked and I'll show you a peaceful communist country.

The American revolution.
Quote:

You're the guy who built a new religion worshipping horses right? haha.

Uh, no. The religion I made doesn't particularly 'worship' anything. That's a subject for a different debate though.
Quote:
This is what I'm talking about with the hypocrisy. If you have a need to kill (the not-so cute) animals and you don't use hand to hand combat or live in some tribe where food is hard to come by, then you're a pussy.

I'd like to see you (try to) kill a deer with hand to hand combat. ^.^
Even if you somehow could, it would be much less humane.
As for why I'd need to, hunting is a critical part of my wilderness survival strategy. There's no way I could pack enough food for a long stay, and hunting with a gun is an effective and efficient way to procure food.
Quote:
And I'll tell you that directly to your face with your gun pointed at mine. You have absolutely no excuse for murdering for giggles. None.

I would never 'murder for giggles'.
If I intentionally kill any living thing, it will be for one of two reasons:
A- To eat said living thing.
B- To prevent said living thing from harming me.
Quote:
If you find yourself hiking and in danger of bear attacks, that's because the bear is bigger and stronger than you.

Which is why I feel the need to carry weapons, which effectively make me stronger than the bear.
Quote:
There's nothing wrong with that. You were given a brain and an agile maneuverable frame. If you need a gun to outwit a bear then all is already lost intellectually anyway.

Bears can outrun humans, especially in their native habitat, where humans are slowed down by the terrain.
Outwitting one is the primary strategy, but this doesn't always work, so I have an effective backup.
Quote:
2011 and we're still doing this Elmer Fudd shit? It beggers belief, it really does.

Yes... Perhaps you've never been to any such place, but there are still places in the world where man has not totally dominated nature yet. And if you don't take precautions in such places, nature will gladly turn the tables.
Quote:

I do eat meat, but that's a world away from running about the country side gunning down beautiful animals like deer and bear because my penis is too small to reassure me of the effectuate of my machismo.

(I was wondering how long it would take for the phallic argument to come up.)
Besides that, what's the difference between eating a deer you killed and cleaned, and eating a cow somebody else killed and cleaned?
Self sufficiency.
Quote:

I'm conservative. Remember this argument is about me recommending the government use the forces our taxes pay for to keep us safe to root out marshal law and extremist johnny come lawmaker and actually keep us safe for once. Arming the entire country and belittling power is madness. It's also suicide. If you lose, you die. If you win, you kill and then die later when you're killed by the theme you've set. So what'll be? Innocent death or guilty death spawning a revolution of deaths (they are called revolutions because they have a habit or revolving back in your face).

Interesting flavor of conservative there...
Late Russian Imperial?
Quote:

Is there something mentally deficient about you?

Different, yes. Deficient, no.
Quote:
Besides your genitalia anxiety? Oh is this why you love horses? Because they are hung? I get it now.

Again with the phallic argument...
And, for your information, that's not the reason I like horses so much.
(It is a nice bonus though ^.^)
Quote:
You need a bunch of new hobbies. Start with replacing your politics hobby. Try kick boxing instead. Try kick boxing a bear! Now that would be impressive. If you kill it, I'll personally shake your hand.

Um, no thanks.
Quote:
Try kick boxing a horse.

Also no. I would never harm a horse. On the rare occasion when one is aggressive towards me, I know how to handle it without attacking the horse.
Quote:
Again, if you win, I'll call you "a hunter" myself. Pulling a trigger and calling yourself a hunter. That's like throwing a brick at Mike Tyson from a moving car and calling yourself a fighter.

If you kill an animal (by any means) and then eat it, you're a hunter.
(With the exception that if the animal is a fish, you're generally called a fisher instead.)
'Hunter' is not an honorary title... not something to be sought after. I don't care if you call me a hunter or not.
Quote:

The means to power is the power to be mean. But you only need a piece of that power to use that power for peace. If I saw a group of demonstrators smashing up public property and starting fires and riots, I'd use more than a hose. They wouldn't do that again.

And that would be an abuse of government power.
Congratulations.
There's a reason that non-lethal force is used to protect government property - it's not worth killing people over.
Quote:
Oh but we use hoses, and they do it every day. Bang up job fellas. And what are they protesting over in the first place? Usually fascist-lite governments that stole power by once claiming to be liberal.

Why do you constantly accuse others of being fascist, while yourself advocating brutal use of government power?
Quote:

The only place you could buy alcohol was from the mafia (which at the time was controlled by the government),

[citation needed]
How was the mafia controlled by the government? If anything, it was often the other way around; the (bribed or intimidated) government being controlled by the mafia.
Quote:
so yeah, it worked splendidly.

It was enacted to reduce/eliminate drinking, but alcohol consumption actually went up during that time...
How do you call that 'working splendidly'?
Quote:

There's guns in the UK, there's just not one in nearly every home and it not permitted by the constitution so gun ownership is surprisingly low and so is the gun crime rate and so the regular police don't need to carry firearms. I don't really need to say anymore about that. It speaks for itself. The question is, why should somebody's dad feel the need to get a gun just because everyone else has one even though he really disapproves of them and only has one because "It's better to have a gun and not need one than to need one and not have one" is unfortunately quite logical to him? This is a gross imposition on him and me. Not the other way around. Most rational people don't like killing things or being near or in possession of things that do kill things. Yet we have the 20% who fear monger everyone into having one.

This may surprise you, but most people who buy guns don't do so thinking, "Uh-oh, everybody else has one, I better get one too."
Quote:
How about they just shoot themselves and we can change the constitution to practice what it preaches about freedom and liberty

Your idea of freedom and liberty is banning things?
Quote:
and get us out of this primitive intellectual stone age that the rest of the world quite rightly mocks us for.

Let them mock. They don't (shouldn't) control my government, and they (certainly) don't control me.
Quote:
Bunch of knuckle draggers with guns. Is there anything more frightening or imposing on those people who can actually string two words together?

Lots of pro-gun people can string two words together. In this post alone, I've strung quite a lot of words together, for example... and I've never noticed any of them dragging their knuckles.
Quote:

You're either a subject of a state (which works, whether you like it or not) or you are the state, subjecting submissives to acknowledge it. Somebody has to rule and they have to rule by power because they have to control the army and the police and they have to control the laws and punish crimes. These are non negotiable.

These are negotiable, actually.
Absolute power is NOT a necessity for government.
Quote:
I really wish you'd recognize this. You need to take people's money, you need to tax them or your country fails.

Yes, taxes are necessary for an effective government (usually).
This doesn't mean you have to take away all the people's freedom though.
Quote:
If you succeed in overthrowing it, you become it. Please just recognize that if nothing else and put this futile "anarchist" nonsense to bed once and for all.

Libertarian, not anarchist. I realize that some government is necessary, but I think it should be as small and unobtrusive as possible.
Quote:


Palestine. Bring the kids for a vacation.

Is that your example of a state where permits are not required?
I was thinking more like 'Wyoming', but that will do.
Quote:
All states value freedom.

No, many don't. Many place safety/security at a higher priority.
Quote:

ocalhoun wrote:

*sigh*
So, people who defend themselves, hunters, target shooters, collectors... they're all terrorists now?


I prefer the term "Ass holes".

Not very polite.
Quote:
Defending themselves?!? Against Bambi? You're kidding me right? When Clay pigeons attack?

No, defending themselves against attackers, defending themselves against animals that actually are dangerous.
Quote:
They have mental problems, plain and simple. They would not get over my threshold. I wouldn't give them house-room. They are human time-bombs waiting to erupt any minute and slaughter all their coworkers. If you go out killing, and you enjoy it, there is something very seriously amiss with you.

No, most gun-owners are not 'time bombs' just waiting to go on a rampage.
From the statistics that I can find, 99.95% of guns in the US are not used in any crimes.
Quote:

What was this reason? And how has not become invalid. Anything short of "we've been overrun by dinosaurs" and I'm gonna have to call bs on that.

See reasons listed above, 1 through 6.
Quote:

Every year, sometimes twice, three times a year, some clown shoots his wife and kids (and always himself just after), every couple of years, some kid shoots up his school. Not a year goes by without some lunatic letting off rounds in public. It is not very rare at all. It's not even rare. And these are headlining grabbing incidents, the millions that go unreported do just that. I wish you'd research what you're talking about. It would save a lot of time.

For the large populations considered, yes it is quite rare.
Quote:

http://www.neahin.org/programs/schoolsafety/gunsafety/statistics.htm

Some of the statistics on this page seem to contradict each other.
3,000 killed by guns in one year, and then later it says 225 killed per year, with 75% of those being by guns?
Quote:

This is the biggest most foremost problem in america today.

Now this is completely false.
There are much more important problems than preventing a few homicides.
Quote:
It needs addressing. I couldn't give two hoots about what a "hunter" wants.

This is obvious. You don't care what any pro-gun person wants.
Fortunately, we have freedom, and can do what we want, regardless of weather you care about us or not.
Quote:
I care about 80 people dying A DAY from guns in the US. I care the gun crime rate being 15 times higher than any other country in the world, and I care most about it being legal.

It isn't legal. Killing people is generally illegal, and nothing counted in the 'crime rate' can be legal, by definition.
(80 per day isn't as much as it sounds like. Compare it to the 1600 people per day in the US who die of heart disease.)
Quote:


Not if I don't have a gun, which I do not and never will have. The scant consolation here, is that if a man has a gun with the intent to use it on me warranting my murdering of him, then he's killing me anyway. I can die a murderer or an innocent party. I've already made my choice. I sit down. You go out blasting. Good for you. Won't see you in hell.

So, you'd sit and politely let a murderer kill you?
Sorry, I haven't 'evolved' into that level of weakness, passivity, and meekness.
Quote:

ocalhoun wrote:

Actually, factories beget guns.
The more you know...


You've just proved that guns beget guns just as violence begets violence and fear begets fear.

I proved this? When?
Quote:
The eyes of fear buy guns. The eyes of love want them gone completely. Only a devil makes a case for a gun. They are not needed to love people and progress as a race of humans. They are needed to stay in this neanderthal rut for eternity. You know you could stand and shoot China men for the duration of your whole life who are trying to hug you and still not get them all. That consoles me when I read your blood thirsty posts condoning killing, fear and hate.

Nice pacifist rant there.
Problem is, if somebody breaks into my house in the middle of the night, it probably isn't because he wants to give me a hug.
Yes, it would be nice for humans to evolve beyond this... But you've got the order wrong.
First, evolve away the need/desire for violence then evolve away the ability for violence.
Quote:

You are not "defending" anything at all. You're cowards. Just admit it. lol, like buying the gun didn't already.

Who's the coward, the one who will defend himself, and prepares for it, or the one who plans to sit and let himself be murdered?
Taking your safety into your own hands is not cowardice. Expecting others to protect you is.
Quote:

You've never set foot in a police state so you have no idea what you're talking about. I've lived in one, by curfew, and it turned so after dark. That is a temporary police state that was rustic and scenic by day.

Odd, you seem to like police states a lot... why did you leave?
Quote:
You'd remove the police? haha!

Realistically, completely removing them isn't an option.
Less power and more oversight and accountability would be an improvement though.
Quote:

Convo = done. Don't respond to me, I promise I won't read it.

That's a shame... It's not often that I get to debate an unabashed statist.
Dialogist
ocalhoun wrote:

He answers to himself. As every free man should.


People will never be equal. If political hierarchy is removed we'll adopt something else to replace it by. It is human nature. We'll look to class, race, age. Anything. One of the main failings of Marxism in practice is the right to prosper against the adversity of the lazy or unintelligible. If a man works hard he deserves the fruits of his labor. You take away the regime and the hammer and sickle becomes the government. Then what of the unemployed or incapacitated? You'll often hear arguments like "Jesus was a socialist" from socialists, often used against Christendom right wing politics. Jesus was the president of 12 fishermen. There was no mistake about leadership there. Removing class, wealth, elite and status, you still have intellect. "What shall we do now guru?" in just about every tribe there is. Two friends or even a marriage and you can guarantee that one of them wears the trousers. It works because one has capitulated power out of personal gain. It is beneficial for people to be led, or else it would not work. Equality has a benevolence but it is not absolute. For example, you told me that I was "not very polite". Theoretically, how impolite can I be before we both remember that you are a moderator and that the power in this very argument is not even equal? It is a form of power that I can appreciate because I recognize the need for rules. While these rules could greatly inhibit my own personal freedom of expression, the simple fact of the matter is this - somebody has to do it.

The fact of the matter is that murder is more difficult if you do it skillfully with your bare-hands. It is more difficult physically and more difficult emotionally. The ability to distance oneself with a sniper rifle, aim, close both eyes and press "kill" is such an easy impersonal open door policy for murder. As easy as a drive-by shooting. As easy as a teenager in a rage with an assault rifle in his school grounds. One 90 degree burst of aggression and 80 or so people can die. This is far too easy. If that person had to tackle these victims physically, are you telling me that massacres would still incur? The simple answer is that they wouldn't.

A "free man", while entirely mythical, always answers to somebody. If a free man answers to nobody he is not free. He is a self-imposed, ostracized captive to his own crimes. In a mild sense, he hasn't even paid his road tax. In a broader sense, he enjoys civilization and community. So in the extreme sense, the alternative to living in cave in the mountains (alone, because having to provide for other mouths is a responsibility of dependency) and if the answering only to and for oneself, completely, totally and unconditionally is not the worst kind slavery that I can think of then Captain Caveman has to publicly integrate and submit certain freedoms. He expects health care and public safety (if he is clever). He expects his personal rights infringers to be cautioned against it and punished when they do impose. He has to pay for these services - or he can go back to his mountain side and remain a prisoner of his own bizarre take freedom, get scurvy or pneumonia and die within months. No modern man is a free man.

So you think having a gun in your pocket removes the bullets from the gun pointed towards your face? Odd theory. Mexican standoffs are great for movies, but in reality, all die. If somebody shoots you, you tense up and shoot. Very rarely does one die instantly. Beheaded people are known to stay conscious for seven seconds. All you having a gun (too) does is take some mother's son (or daughter) with you. What's the point? Usually a person pointing a gun at you does not want you dead as first priority. They want something else. You can walk away from that situation, 9 times out of ten. If you whip out a 9 mm, you're a dead man, certainly, even if they're terrified of killing you. This belies the fact that my idealistic argument has removed the gun from their possession too. So no, I don't think you have an argument whatsoever.

wrote:

1- (all) People (even the weak ones) can defend themselves effectively from a variety of threats.
2- People can hunt their own food.
3- People can enjoy shooting as a fun activity, or collect rare or interesting guns as a hobby.
4- People can be prepared to resist and possibly overthrow an oppressive government.
5- People can be prepared for disaster situations that may require self-defense or hunting.
6- People can practice shooting for any of the above reasons - and a populace that already knows how to shoot well has historically been a great asset in war.


1. Arm the meek. Bequeath them the Earth. In this life? Absolute nightmare.
2. Arm the needlessly blood thirsty. Absolute nightmare.
3. Arm the frustrated psychopaths. Absolute nightmare.
4. LOL. Arm the illuminati conspiracy theorists. Absolute nightmare.
5. Disastrous situations which limit food produce do just that. Where are the animals to hunt? So Humans then? Absolute nightmare.
6. You don't need to learn how to shoot to murder with firearms. And all wars are bad. People kill each other because they are marched into them by either your oppressive government, or their oppressive government. So basically you support war now too? You're beyond hypocrisy at this point, you do realize that don't you? Absolute nightmare.

The American Revolution wasn't a revolution. It was a domestic invasion technically. A civil war, or an uprising, at best. We never had that power in the first place to revolve back to us. The only positive revolution (for the revolutionaries, not the people) was the french revolution. It was so positive that the people celebrate it every year and have had 3 since. Revolution is traditional and fashionable in France because it worked. In '69 they chased De Gaule into hiding and had another. Why? Because it's part of their culture, its worked before and its a laugh. France has notoriously avoided War historically, except against itself, which is fair game for anyone to conspire. Even art students. This is incredibly dangerous hegemony. This is an Ouroboros country. The Germans on the other hand, last had a socialist revolution just before Hitler was imprisoned. Not once since. Education comes in many forms and it is often the failings that make a country politically sound.

You make statements like "mankind is generally horrible" and whether I agree or not is irrelevant to the proposition that you seem to think that it should be armed. Let's say it is horrible. Let's say that after taking away as many guns as possible and making it illegal, I can still promise you murder, but more similar to that of other non-gun populated countries. Let's say down to 10% of the current murder rate in the US or lower. What leg do you have to stand on? If I did it, and succeeded, I'm humble and all and that good stuff, but I'd expect a noble peace prize (at least).

I didn't advocate a police state whatsoever. I find the notion despicable. That's just a straw man. I advocated a temporary police state with one specific purpose and objective and that goal is to root out as many needless murder weapons as possible and hopefully eradicate them - For the very simple reason that I find Marshal Law to be a police state, only a much worse, uncoordinated, unanswerable and dangerous one. I dunno, have you ever driven through South Central, LA? While you find power abhorrent, I, alternatively, have stated logical reasons why somebody has to rule and control some semblance of power for the good of all united in that community. I am suggesting that this massive means to power could be implemented not to oppress, but to moderate to prevent oppression being an absolute necessity. Because everyone armed and pissed off is worse than a police state. And ironically, it does require a much bigger one to neutralize it. All your position does is create more problems, for yourself and the government that you wish was more lenient. My proposal solves both problems and seeks an utopian (mythical) idealism with a hell of lot more congruency than yours does.

Quote:
Odd, you seem to like police states a lot... why did you leave?


The question is, why was I even there? As for me being a "fascist", after 6 years of anarchism and traveling to do some of the most liberty bereft states on earth, and being bashed up and slung from holding to tribunal at every port and even exported by tug boat from the Netherlands, I realized one simple truth. "State Power Always Wins". I then decided to approach it in a non activist methodology and infiltrate politically. I got on the inside of conservative political infrastructure with anything but sincere intentions. I learned everything about their politics, ethics, motives and ideology with a hope of dismantling it from the inside. The more I learned the more I related to. I realized that I was, if anything, a conservative after all, wanting to protect my civil liberties and human rights (I do not vote Conservative in US because those religious soundbiting, racist, ignorant sonsovbitches are not conservative and that jumped up public school boy in the UK who keeps a puppet liberal as his gopher boy is hardly conservative either). I didn't take me long between reading Orwell, Chomsky and Lennon to realize that this whole anarchism nonsense was just a load of circular piffle. It's alright for a "Where The Hell Is Matt" tour of the dark side of the moon but when the music stops, there's no chair left to sit in.



ocalhoun wrote:

That's a shame... It's not often that I get to debate an unabashed statist.


The only reason I responded again, besides the questions, strawmen and misrepresentation is this line right here. I am not proposing we build a police state. I'm saying we have the means to one already in place and great amount of intelligensia to draw from in appropriating a swift, sharp response. ie: Not along the lines of the ludicrous "Patriot Act". We have a military that is currently imposing a police state on somebody else's country, much to our global and domestic detriment. If we took half of that power and applied it to benevolently (and yes, temporarily fascistly, not along the lines of Mussolini, Stalin or Hitler, but more like Thatcher or Gorbachev - who I also dislike) then we could put Operation Disarm into effect with startlingly effective results. I'm talking first term results, which a president could initiate nationwide and only possibly see positive results from - In the case of cutting the murder rate down to a quarter, there is no negatives. So you say statist. I say realist. You're living in a fantasy world and walking down the wrong path. I'm only trying my damnedest to get us both there - peacefully and realistically. There is no Plan B. You take out a gun, they take out a hand cannon. You take a articulately controlled, well administered, thoughtfully guided pen, they take out their pension.

My opinion on hunting and self-defense still stands. Hunting is antiquated inhumane sport like dog fighting and therefore (to me) it is unnecessarily macabre and needs to be shelved. Self-defense against somebody's fists has less probability of killing both of you. In my argument, there's no legal and therefore very little guns one needs to worry about defending himself against, albeit, probably with a certain death awaiting him anyway. When I make a case for dying innocently, I have already accepted death anyway. If you look at India, Rosa Parks, Civil Rights, Tank Man at Tiananmen Square etc, most positive important political change came not from violence, but from somebody just sitting there or refusing to move in the face of extreme violent opposition. So when I said "Sit Down", I was quoting Gandhi directly. "Bed Peace, Hair Peace", etc, "Eli Eli Lama sabachthani"... whatever you like. I'm not interested in making them bleed. Because that makes me them.
ocalhoun
Dialogist wrote:
ocalhoun wrote:

He answers to himself. As every free man should.


People will never be equal.

But we can still try.
Quote:
If political hierarchy is removed we'll adopt something else to replace it by. It is human nature. We'll look to class, race, age. Anything.

Yes, that's why we need a minimalist government to promote equality.
Quote:
One of the main failings of Marxism in practice is the right to prosper against the adversity of the lazy or unintelligible. If a man works hard he deserves the fruits of his labor. You take away the regime and the hammer and sickle becomes the government. Then what of the unemployed or incapacitated? You'll often hear arguments like "Jesus was a socialist" from socialists, often used against Christendom right wing politics. Jesus was the president of 12 fishermen. There was no mistake about leadership there. Removing class, wealth, elite and status, you still have intellect. "What shall we do now guru?" in just about every tribe there is. Two friends or even a marriage and you can guarantee that one of them wears the trousers. It works because one has capitulated power out of personal gain. It is beneficial for people to be led, or else it would not work. Equality has a benevolence but it is not absolute.

I'm not a Marxist... where did you get the idea that I was?
Quote:
For example, you told me that I was "not very polite". Theoretically, how impolite can I be before we both remember that you are a moderator and that the power in this very argument is not even equal?

I do not moderate threads that I am actively participating in.
So, you can get as impolite as you want, and I will do nothing.
Another moderator might though.
Quote:
It is a form of power that I can appreciate because I recognize the need for rules. While these rules could greatly inhibit my own personal freedom of expression, the simple fact of the matter is this - somebody has to do it.

Yes, you seem quite fond of rules.
But an ideal world has no rules. (And requires ideal people)
Quote:

The fact of the matter is that murder is more difficult if you do it skillfully with your bare-hands. It is more difficult physically and more difficult emotionally.

So?
Quote:
The ability to distance oneself with a sniper rifle, aim, close both eyes and press "kill"

If you shoot with your eyes closed, you're doing it wrong.
And, by the way, there's no such thing as a 'sniper rifle', except as defined by 'a rifle used by a sniper'. The person behind the gun makes the sniper, not the gun.
(And if you try it, you'll find that it actually does take a good bit of skill to hit a human-sized target from any significant distance.)
Quote:
is such an easy impersonal open door policy for murder. As easy as a drive-by shooting. As easy as a teenager in a rage with an assault rifle in his school grounds. One 90 degree burst of aggression and 80 or so people can die. This is far too easy. If that person had to tackle these victims physically, are you telling me that massacres would still incur? The simple answer is that they wouldn't.

Of course these massacres are preventable (somewhat*).
Preventing them isn't worth the sacrifice though.


*People can still use bombs, chemicals, or illegally obtained/made firearms.
Quote:

A "free man", while entirely mythical, always answers to somebody. If a free man answers to nobody he is not free. He is a self-imposed, ostracized captive to his own crimes.

What crimes?
How does 'answering to nobody' automatically make one a criminal?
Quote:
In a mild sense, he hasn't even paid his road tax. In a broader sense, he enjoys civilization and community. So in the extreme sense, the alternative to living in cave in the mountains (alone, because having to provide for other mouths is a responsibility of dependency) and if the answering only to and for oneself, completely, totally and unconditionally is not the worst kind slavery that I can think of

Thoreau wrote about doing such a thing... and he didn't seem to think of it as slavery... He recommended it rather highly, if I recall correctly.
Read Thoreau's Walden... I think it would open your mind a bit, and let you see the beauty of self-sufficiency and solitude.
Quote:
then Captain Caveman has to publicly integrate and submit certain freedoms. He expects health care and public safety (if he is clever). He expects his personal rights infringers to be cautioned against it and punished when they do impose. He has to pay for these services - or he can go back to his mountain side and remain a prisoner of his own bizarre take freedom, get scurvy or pneumonia and die within months.

Many people throughout the years have become hermits and separated from society... And many of those lived for quite a lot longer than a few months.
If you know how to survive in the wilderness, you won't get scurvy or pneumonia.
(Grow vegetables and/or fruit for vitamins, or get vitamins from pine trees. Keep warm and dry.)
Quote:

So you think having a gun in your pocket removes the bullets from the gun pointed towards your face?

Speaking of straw men... No, I do not think this.
Quote:
Odd theory. Mexican standoffs are great for movies, but in reality, all die. If somebody shoots you, you tense up and shoot. Very rarely does one die instantly. Beheaded people are known to stay conscious for seven seconds. All you having a gun (too) does is take some mother's son (or daughter) with you.

If somebody kills me, I'd prefer to take my murderer with me, thank you very much.
And no, if somebody is already pointing a gun at me, I won't whip out mine and point it at him. I'll be very polite, and look for an opportunity to do one of two things:
1- Get close enough to quickly grab the gun/push it to the side, and make it no longer point at me, and then attempt to overpower the threat. (Twisting the gun away from the attacker will bend his fingers backwards, probably making him drop the gun, and possibly even breaking fingers.)
2- Get far enough to duck around a corner or other cover, and make a getaway, pausing to get my own gun out when safely behind cover. (Then decide between running or counterattack based on the circumstances.)
Quote:
What's the point?

Survival.
Quote:
Usually a person pointing a gun at you does not want you dead as first priority. They want something else. You can walk away from that situation, 9 times out of ten.

Yeah, but then there's that last 1/10... Given any opportunity (see plan above) I'd prefer to take my fate into my own hands, rather than leave my fate in the hands of an attacker.
Quote:
If you whip out a 9 mm, you're a dead man, certainly, even if they're terrified of killing you.

See plan above. 'whip out a 9mm' is not step #1.
Quote:

wrote:

1- (all) People (even the weak ones) can defend themselves effectively from a variety of threats.
2- People can hunt their own food.
3- People can enjoy shooting as a fun activity, or collect rare or interesting guns as a hobby.
4- People can be prepared to resist and possibly overthrow an oppressive government.
5- People can be prepared for disaster situations that may require self-defense or hunting.
6- People can practice shooting for any of the above reasons - and a populace that already knows how to shoot well has historically been a great asset in war.


1. Arm the meek. Bequeath them the Earth. In this life? Absolute nightmare.
2. Arm the needlessly blood thirsty. Absolute nightmare.
3. Arm the frustrated psychopaths. Absolute nightmare.
4. LOL. Arm the illuminati conspiracy theorists. Absolute nightmare.
5. Disastrous situations which limit food produce do just that. Where are the animals to hunt? So Humans then? Absolute nightmare.
6. You don't need to learn how to shoot to murder with firearms. And all wars are bad. People kill each other because they are marched into them by either your oppressive government, or their oppressive government. So basically you support war now too? You're beyond hypocrisy at this point, you do realize that don't you? Absolute nightmare.

1: Yes, they deserve the Earth as much as the strong do. In THIS life, since many don't believe in any other life.
2: Hunters are not needlessly bloodthirsty (usually). They're just not squeamish.
3: People who shoot for fun or collect guns are not 'frustrated psychopaths'. Have you ever shot a gun? You should try it; it's fun.
4: Not conspiracy theorists... Sometimes governments legitimately need to be overthrown.
5: The animals to hunt are in the forest. (And in my yard. Today in my yard, I saw: Deer: 5, Turkey: approx 40, rabbit: 2) Elk and bighorn sheep are also sometimes in this area. (not to mention other random small game and small birds). Plenty to eat without hunting humans. If I may make another suggestion, perhaps you should visit some wilderness area? It doesn't sound like you've ever spent much time in one... Which is regrettable; it's a great experience.
6: You don't need to learn, but it helps a LOT. A significant amount of skill is involved in actually hitting what you shoot at... Particularly if the target is moving and/or far away. And any situation where you really need a gun will be stressful, so having this skill well drilled can prevent losing it during times of stress. Operating and maintaining the weapons also takes some specialized knowledge at times.

Quote:

The American Revolution wasn't a revolution. It was a domestic invasion technically. A civil war, or an uprising, at best.

Mere wording quibbles.
They overthrew a government they judged unjust. They set up a pretty good government in its place.
(Significantly helped by the private ownership of firearms, and a populace with experience in hunting.)
Quote:
We never had that power in the first place to revolve back to us. The only positive revolution (for the revolutionaries, not the people) was the french revolution. It was so positive that the people celebrate it every year and have had 3 since. Revolution is traditional and fashionable in France because it worked. In '69 they chased De Gaule into hiding and had another. Why? Because it's part of their culture, its worked before and its a laugh. France has notoriously avoided War historically, except against itself, which is fair game for anyone to conspire. Even art students. This is incredibly dangerous hegemony. This is an Ouroboros country.

So, first you say that no revolution turns out well ever and then you give me an example of one (or several) that did turn out well...
Perhaps the 'revolutions are always bad' assertion needs to be rethought?
Quote:
The Germans on the other hand, last had a socialist revolution just before Hitler was imprisoned. Not once since. Education comes in many forms and it is often the failings that make a country politically sound.

And revolutions are not always good either.
Quote:

You make statements like "mankind is generally horrible" and whether I agree or not is irrelevant to the proposition that you seem to think that it should be armed. Let's say it is horrible. Let's say that after taking away as many guns as possible and making it illegal, I can still promise you murder, but more similar to that of other non-gun populated countries. Let's say down to 10% of the current murder rate in the US or lower. What leg do you have to stand on?

This leg:
Those who sacrifice freedom for security deserve (and will have) neither.
The US was founded by people willing to risk their lives for freedom... and it can be ruined by people willing to give up that freedom to reduce risk.
Quote:
If I did it, and succeeded, I'm humble and all and that good stuff, but I'd expect a noble peace prize (at least).

These two statements are contradictory...
Humble people don't expect (at least) a 'noble peace prize'... (Which I assume is somewhat similar to the 'Nobel' type.)
You can be humble, or you can expect a prize... but you can't do both.
Quote:

I didn't advocate a police state whatsoever. I find the notion despicable. That's just a straw man. I advocated a temporary police state with one specific purpose and objective and that goal is to root out as many needless murder weapons as possible and hopefully eradicate them

Speaking of contradictory statements...
Quote:
- For the very simple reason that I find Marshal Law to be a police state, only a much worse, uncoordinated, unanswerable and dangerous one. I dunno, have you ever driven through South Central, LA? While you find power abhorrent, I, alternatively, have stated logical reasons why somebody has to rule and control some semblance of power for the good of all united in that community. I am suggesting that this massive means to power could be implemented not to oppress, but to moderate to prevent oppression being an absolute necessity.

It is the nature of governments to oppress.
They can only be stopped by limiting their power to do so.
Quote:
Because everyone armed and pissed off is worse than a police state.

Your opinion. I disagree.
I would rather be free and in danger.
You would rather be safe and oppressed.
Quote:
And ironically, it does require a much bigger one to neutralize it. All your position does is create more problems, for yourself and the government that you wish was more lenient.

Leaving things as they are doesn't create additional problems.
Imposing a 'temporary' police state very well could create additional problems.
Quote:
My proposal solves both problems and seeks an utopian (mythical) idealism with a hell of lot more congruency than yours does.

Describe this utopia please. I've been wondering for a while what your ideal state would be like.
Quote:

Quote:
Odd, you seem to like police states a lot... why did you leave?


The question is, why was I even there? As for me being a "fascist", after 6 years of anarchism and traveling to do some of the most liberty bereft states on earth, and being bashed up and slung from holding to tribunal at every port and even exported by tug boat from the Netherlands,

Anarchist 'countries' don't have restrictions on liberty, holding, tribunals, nor do they export people.
May I ask for your definition of 'anarchist'?
Your definition seems much different than mine, and knowing it may help me clear up some misunderstandings.
Quote:
I realized one simple truth. "State Power Always Wins".

Actually, sometimes it doesn't...
Especially when the people have power of their own.
Quote:
I then decided to approach it in a non activist methodology and infiltrate politically. I got on the inside of conservative political infrastructure with anything but sincere intentions. I learned everything about their politics, ethics, motives and ideology with a hope of dismantling it from the inside. The more I learned the more I related to. I realized that I was, if anything, a conservative after all,

Interesting... What were your original ideals that were corrupted/overridden/co-opted?
Quote:
wanting to protect my civil liberties and human rights (I do not vote Conservative in US because those religious soundbiting, racist, ignorant sonsovbitches are not conservative and that jumped up public school boy in the UK who keeps a puppet liberal as his gopher boy is hardly conservative either). I didn't take me long between reading Orwell, Chomsky and Lennon to realize that this whole anarchism nonsense was just a load of circular piffle.

Again, I'd really like to know about your definition of anarchism... especially if you think Orwell, Chomsky and Lennon wrote about it.
Quote:

ocalhoun wrote:

That's a shame... It's not often that I get to debate an unabashed statist.


The only reason I responded again, besides the questions, strawmen and misrepresentation is this line right here.

That's good. I'm glad you would also think it a shame to forgo this discussion.
You've got some very... interesting stances on these issues, and this is much more enjoyable than debating someone who's responses I can mostly predict.
Quote:
I am not proposing we build a police state. I'm saying we have the means to one already in place and great amount of intelligensia to draw from in appropriating a swift, sharp response. ie: Not along the lines of the ludicrous "Patriot Act". We have a military that is currently imposing a police state on somebody else's country, much to our global and domestic detriment. If we took half of that power and applied it to benevolently (and yes, temporarily fascistly, not along the lines of Mussolini, Stalin or Hitler, but more like Thatcher or Gorbachev - who I also dislike) then we could put Operation Disarm into effect with startlingly effective results.

Oh, police states are effective all right...
But is that effect worth the cost it comes with?
Quote:
I'm talking first term results, which a president could initiate nationwide and only possibly see positive results from

Actually, all three branches would need to cooperate to enact your plan.
Congress must write the law and/or change the constitution.
The president must approve the law, and administrate the enforcement of it.
The court must rule the law to be constitutional.

Or does your plan also involve making the president a dictator?
Quote:
- In the case of cutting the murder rate down to a quarter, there is no negatives.

There might be negatives... It depends what you do to reduce the murder rate.
Quote:
So you say statist. I say realist.

Are you denying being a statist, or are you saying that being a statist is the same thing as being a realist?
Quote:
You're living in a fantasy world and walking down the wrong path.

Odd, the world seems real enough to me... Though I suppose a fantasy world would look real from the inside.
I guess I'll just continue to operate based on the world I observe - it is futile to guess at what the real world is like if I'm living in a fantasy world.
Quote:
I'm only trying my damnedest to get us both there - peacefully and realistically.

Get us both where? The real world?
From what I hear of it, I don't like your real world very much... I don't think I want to go there.
Quote:
There is no Plan B.

'No plan survives beyond first contact with the enemy.'
You should always have a plan B, because plans have a way of failing, and circumstances have a way of changing without your permission.
Quote:
You take out a gun, they take out a hand cannon.

What are you getting at there?
Quote:
You take a articulately controlled, well administered, thoughtfully guided pen, they take out their pension.

And I'm completely confused about this one...
What does my thoughtfully guided pen represent?
Why do I care that they take out their pension?
Quote:

My opinion on hunting and self-defense still stands. Hunting is antiquated inhumane sport like dog fighting and therefore (to me) it is unnecessarily macabre and needs to be shelved.

And that's your opinion about it.
Other people have different opinions... I just wish that you could realize the value of others' opinions and not try to force your own upon them.
Quote:
Self-defense against somebody's fists has less probability of killing both of you.

News flash: Homo Sapiens is a tool-using species. If guns are not an available tool, something else may be used.
Personally, I'd like to just have the most effective tool I can get for this purpose.
Quote:
In my argument, there's no legal and therefore very little guns one needs to worry about defending himself against, albeit, probably with a certain death awaiting him anyway.

Guns don't just defend against people with guns.
Guns can (legitimately) defend against any assailant using (possibly) deadly force.
Quote:
When I make a case for dying innocently, I have already accepted death anyway.

I have not accepted death, and I am willing to fight for my survival.
Yet, you want to take (some of) my ability to do so away...
Just because you have accepted death, doesn't mean that everyone should.
Quote:
If you look at India, Rosa Parks, Civil Rights, Tank Man at Tiananmen Square etc, most positive important political change came not from violence, but from somebody just sitting there or refusing to move in the face of extreme violent opposition. So when I said "Sit Down", I was quoting Gandhi directly. "Bed Peace, Hair Peace", etc, "Eli Eli Lama sabachthani"... whatever you like. I'm not interested in making them bleed. Because that makes me them.

I'm not interested in making them bleed either. I'm interested in making them stop interfering with me. This may involve bleeding, or it may not, whichever works.
Dialogist


Reminds you slightly of those Auchwitz piles of corpses doesn't it? Only in reverse. This is a pile of people who will not be needlessly murdered. You make a very poor argument for the proliferation of guns often disguised and padded out with many small diversionary arguments about hunting, politics and freedom. Most of them counteract each other, even if they were relevant. When we break it down to the bone gristle, the sum of your argument seems to be (correct if I'm wrong) that you have the right to have a gun because you want one, and here's some once in a lifetime possibilities where you might need one. I mean, one day next year, I may need a space shuttle or an ark. I mean, I could make some bizarre argument for AIDS is somehow a blameless source of population control. The fact of the matter is, I could find some scant devil's advocate for a killing device in any scenario, but it would just be an exercise in debate club, rather than anything logical or rational. Believe it or not,

ocalhoun wrote:

And any situation where you really need a gun...


Does not exist. Not for non enlisted citizens. It simply does not exist. Again, we can fantasize about Mexican standoffs, create hunting tales and pretend the voting public is Crocodile Dundee, but the simple fact of the matter is, most people in the US need to get up, go to work, go to bed, rinse and repeat. This doesn't demand a gun. In the once maybe, twice in a lifetime unlikelihood that those in really deprived areas become held at gunpoint, the argument for the gun falls flat because you are arguing against a proposition that nobody has a gun, so it is either makes it a) vanishingly unlikely or b) you the sole aggressor and reason for you 'needing' a gun or just c) impossible. Most of the general public do not need to hunt for their food. They have agriculture and farming which they can then buy neatly prepared and packaged from a supermarket. It's fun, I don't know if you've tried it, you simply buy the sausages, open them and put them in a frying pan.

In short, there is no absolute necessity for having a gun and "I like them personally" is not a good argument when the reasons for everyone having to endure their presence are weak, subjective and aid some theatrical movie delusion or philosophical fantasy about Alpha man from days of yore. You can't, truth be told, even come up with a plausible argument for the right to bear arms, being that it is a "right", being that there is clearly a strong opposition to it being so.

On the other hand you have device that was invented for one sole purpose - to murder. This device comes free with fear, intimidation and threat already included. The machine has absolutely no positive usage. Murder rate drops significantly without them. Crime drops significantly without them. Fear and threat drops significantly without them. I mean, it is one of your arguments that others having them (a murder device) somehow bolsters your requirement for them (a murder device) and if that doesn't prove I'm right then you have the irony of the ubiquitous fear and mistrust that has created this maxim by their very legal presence alone. So in short, it's admirable that you keep slugging away at this but the simple fact of the matter is

Dialogist wrote:

What leg do you have to stand on?


ocalhoun wrote:

This leg:
Those who sacrifice freedom for security deserve (and will have) neither.


I couldn't have said it better myself. Thanks.
Bikerman
deanhills wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
Making guns widely available means that they will inevitably end up in the hands of mentally ill people. Yoiu might think that is sensible,,,,I don't.
Great. Then we will have to confiscate everything from human beings that can potentially be harmful to them, as they would do when we are screened before we are boarding an airplane? Nothing with sharp edges, no knives, forks, nail files, liquids that could be used to make bombs, cell phones that can activate bombs, etc. etc. Of course all nuclear bombs are being used all the time to kill others of course! Twisted Evil If you buy a box of matches, do you use it to set fire to a house, or do you keep it in a safe place?
As I said, there is an important distinction. A gun (and a bomb) is designed to kill - matches, sharp edges, knives etc are not.
Quote:
I am almost certain if there were a scientific enquiry into gun ownership and whether the intent with owning the gun is solely to kill others that most of the gun owners would say that they own a gun in order to defend themselves in the rare event of an invasion in their home. I agree with you that ultimately a gun does kill, but it is the person who pulls the trigger who does the killing. And it is the extent to which that person is educated and trained that will determine how the gun will be used.
Most gun owners DO say they have it for self-defence. It is a completely bogus argument. The US has, by far, the most killings by firearm (leaving out countries that are currently at war) so if there were really anything in this 'self defence' argument we would expect to see fair numbers of shootings in self-defence in the US. What do we actually see? There are more people killed by lightening than killed in self-defence with a gun.
http://www.vpc.org/studies/myth.htm

In fact the gun would be more likely to kill the 'defender' than the assailant. Unless you are highly trained then a gun can be a liability in any close conflict (as can knives, for a similar reason). Most killings are committed by someone who knows the victim, and they would also know that the person carried a gun, and prepare accordingly.
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-18836426.html

Quote:
To my mind there is much more harm coming from all those blood thirsty movies that children get to be brainwashed with, in which people get even with one another by simply killing one another. Than the actual guns themselves. If you take the guns away, no doubt there will be other tools that can be used to kill one another. Ironically, if we can deal successfully with the need to kill one another, there will be less guns around. But as long as killing is around, I believe everyone should have the right to defend themselves. There should however be rules in place with regard to ownership of guns, as there are currently.
The notion that killing is somehow a result of TV violence just doesn't work. The same violence is watched by children across Europe and the homicide rate in Europe is tiny compared to the US. There are about 17,000 homicides per year in the US. 15,000 of those involve firearms. By contrast the UK has around 320 - which is in-line with most of Europe.
I don't actually give much of a toss either way - if Americans want to kill each other then that is up to them - but to pretend that it is not related to the number and easy availability of firearms is silly - and just shows how gullible people are when they wish to believe nonsense. It reminds me of the drunk driver who swears that a few pints actually make him drive better...

The notion that a gun makes you safer is, and always has been, a fallacy - it does exactly the opposite.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17922-carrying-a-gun-increases-risk-of-getting-shot-and-killed.html
ocalhoun
Dialogist wrote:

Reminds you slightly of those Auchwitz piles of corpses doesn't it?

No, actually.
I was just thinking what a destruction of value was happening there.
Quote:
Only in reverse. This is a pile of people who will not be needlessly murdered.

No, it is a pile of guns.
The vast majority of those guns would never be used to needlessly murder anyone.
Quote:
You make a very poor argument for the proliferation of guns often disguised and padded out with many small diversionary arguments about hunting, politics and freedom.

Freedom, in particular, is not a diversion. It is the core of the argument.
Quote:
Most of them counteract each other, even if they were relevant.

How so? I didn't notice any contradiction...
Quote:
When we break it down to the bone gristle, the sum of your argument seems to be (correct if I'm wrong) that you have the right to have a gun because you want one, and here's some once in a lifetime possibilities where you might need one.

More or less, yes.
Freedom is being able to do what you want.
And even if I only need one once in a lifetime... I still need one that once.
Quote:
I mean, one day next year, I may need a space shuttle or an ark.

Go ahead and get one then. Fortunately, nobody is trying to make spacecraft or ships illegal.
Quote:
I mean, I could make some bizarre argument for AIDS is somehow a blameless source of population control. The fact of the matter is, I could find some scant devil's advocate for a killing device in any scenario,

That's true.
Makes me wonder why you still use phrases like 'with no negatives'...
Nearly every decision has both negative and positive effects, especially on a national scale.
I just happen to think that the negatives of confiscating all guns outweigh the positives.
Quote:
but it would just be an exercise in debate club, rather than anything logical or rational. Believe it or not,

ocalhoun wrote:

And any situation where you really need a gun...


Does not exist. Not for non enlisted citizens. It simply does not exist.

I'm afraid you're wrong here.
By some estimates, it exists 2.5 million times per year... only counting self-defense uses, and not the other 5 uses I mentioned.
Some examples:
Quote:
Police say that a robber entered the Leal Food Mart on the 2100 block of Leal Street in San Antonio, TX during the night shift, while wearing a black wrap over his face to hide his identity. After the robber displayed a handgun and pointed it at the manager and a female employee, the manager reportedly told the employee to run while he grabbed and fired his own .380 pistol. The robber was struck in the head, and the manager and employee were unharmed, police say. A suspect, reportedly identified as 28 year old Christopher Jaramillo, died from his wound, according to news reports. The manager reportedly acquired his concealed carry permit about 6 months ago, and began carrying at work after an earlier robbery ended with the robber firing a shot in the store and pistol whipping a clerk.

Quote:
Police say that at about 7:00PM, a robber, who was dressed in black, armed with a gun, and had a bandanna covering his face, entered the Indian Lakes food Mart in Virginia Beach, VA. The clerk is said to have seen the robber, grabbed his own gun, and fired on shot in self defense. The robber, who is believed to not been injured, then reportedly fled the store, according to news reports. No injuries to the clerk or any bystanders were reported.

Quote:
Police say that a burglar kicked in the front door of a home in Fresno, CA and entered. Acting in self defense, the owner of the home reportedly grabbed his self defense gun and fired, wounding the burglar and causing him to flee. A welfare department investigator who was in the area spotted and apprehended the burglar shortly thereafter. No injuries to the homeowner or any occupants were reported.

Quote:
Police say that just before 5:45AM, they received a 911 call reporting an in-progress home invasion on the 2100 block of Georgetown Blvd in Lansing, MI. The owner of the home reportedly grabbed his self defense gun and fired at the intruder, striking the burglar and ending the home invasion. A suspect was found dead at the scene, although his identity has not been released. No injuries to the homeowner were reported.

Quote:
Police say that just before 11:30PM, two home invaders armed themselves with a rifle and a pistol then went to a home on the 2800 block of Polk Street in Beaufort, SC. The masked criminals reportedly knocked on the door, and when someone answered it, burst into the home. A guest in the home grabbed his own pistol and opened fire on the intruders, striking one of the men and causing both to flee, leaving the home’s occupants unharmed, according to news reports. Police arrived and found a suspect, reportedly identified as 24 year old Lucas Miles Morgan, with the help of a K-9 unit. A second suspect, reportedly identified as 25 year old Darryl James Pryor, was said to have been found in an emergency room suffering from a gunshot wound.

Quote:
Police say that just before 4:30am, a burglar entered a home on the 9300 block of East 93rd Street North in Owasso, OK. Acting in self defense, the homeowner reportedly grabbed his gun and fired, striking the burglar twice and ending the attack. A suspect, reportedly identified as 21 year old Cody Hurst, was taken to a local hospital for treatment of gunshot wounds, according to news reports. The case will be submitted to the Tusla County District Attorney’s office for review and possible charges.

Quote:
Police say that attackers approached and attempted to rob a man outside the Longhorn Steakhouse on the 6800 block of Okeechobee Blvd in West Palm Beach, Florida. Acting in self defense, the robbery victim reportedly drew and fired his handgun, striking one of the robbers and causing the other two robbers to flee. A suspect was reportedly taken to a local hospital with life-threatening injuries, and police are seeking the two uninjured robbers. No injuries to the concealed carry permit holder were reported.


So, just maybe, circumstances where one needs a gun do exist?




Quote:
Again, we can fantasize about Mexican standoffs, create hunting tales and pretend the voting public is Crocodile Dundee,

No fantasizing or pretending is needed. See real examples above.
Quote:
but the simple fact of the matter is, most people in the US need to get up, go to work, go to bed, rinse and repeat. This doesn't demand a gun. In the once maybe, twice in a lifetime unlikelihood that those in really deprived areas become held at gunpoint,

Not every time you need a gun is due to someone 'holding you at gunpoint'.
Again, see examples above. Not all of those examples involved the defender being held at gunpoint.
Quote:
the argument for the gun falls flat because you are arguing against a proposition that nobody has a gun,

Just because the attacker doesn't have a gun doesn't mean a gun can't be used for defense. There are other deadly weapons, and you can even be killed with bare hands... especially if you are not in particularly good physical shape.
Quote:
so it is either makes it a) vanishingly unlikely or b) you the sole aggressor and reason for you 'needing' a gun or just c) impossible. Most of the general public do not need to hunt for their food.

Yet a large portion enjoys doing so.
And it's a great skill to have, should times become hard.
Quote:
They have agriculture and farming which they can then buy neatly prepared and packaged from a supermarket. It's fun, I don't know if you've tried it, you simply buy the sausages, open them and put them in a frying pan.

Or you can make them from scratch, starting by hunting a wild hog.
Quote:

In short, there is no absolute necessity for having a gun

See examples above.
Quote:
and "I like them personally" is not a good argument when the reasons for everyone having to endure their presence are weak, subjective and aid some theatrical movie delusion or philosophical fantasy about Alpha man from days of yore. You can't, truth be told, even come up with a plausible argument for the right to bear arms,

I came up with 6, if you'll recall.
Quote:
being that it is a "right", being that there is clearly a strong opposition to it being so.

And an even stronger force wanting it to remain a right.
"In a June 2008 poll taken by CNN, an overwhelming 87 percent of Americans opposed laws preventing all Americans from owning guns."
Quote:

On the other hand you have device that was invented for one sole purpose - to murder.

Wrong. 'Murder' is the wrongful killing of a person.
There are circumstances where you can kill both morally and legally. - and these circumstances are what guns were invented for.
Quote:
This device comes free with fear, intimidation and threat already included.

Which is a great bonus. Sometimes you can scare off an attacker by just showing the gun, or just firing a warning shot.
Quote:
The machine has absolutely no positive usage.

Wrong. In addition to the examples above, they can be used for hunting, be used for fun, be used to help overthrow an oppressive government, and be used for practice of wartime skills.
Quote:
Murder rate drops significantly without them. Crime drops significantly without them. Fear and threat drops significantly without them.

[Citation Needed]
There are places in the world with lots of guns, but low crime rate, and low murder rate.
There are also places in the world with very few guns, yet still having high crime rate and high murder rate.
Quote:
I mean, it is one of your arguments that others having them (a murder device) somehow bolsters your requirement for them (a murder device)

No, that's one of your arguments. I never made this argument.
Quote:

ocalhoun wrote:

This leg:
Those who sacrifice freedom for security deserve (and will have) neither.


I couldn't have said it better myself. Thanks.

If you agree with that statement, then why do you want everyone to give up some of their freedom for better security? Do you want them to have neither?
Dialogist
Security is the degree of protection against danger, damage, loss, and criminal activity.

Freedom the state of being free or at liberty rather than in confinement or under physical restraint.

Marry the two with guns? My argument does. Yours does not. And it was your statement.
ocalhoun
Dialogist wrote:
Security is the degree of protection against danger, damage, loss, and criminal activity.

Close enough.
Quote:

Freedom the state of being free or at liberty rather than in confinement or under physical restraint.

Needs to add non-physical coercion in order to be a comprehensive definition.
Quote:

Marry the two with guns?

What does this mean?
Why would you want to 'marry' the two? They are diametrically opposed; they can never be fully combined.
Quote:
My argument does.

Except for the 'with guns' part...
(Also pretty sketchy about the 'freedom' part... You do have lots of security though.)
Quote:
Yours does not.

Of course not. I have no wish to 'marry' security and freedom.
Security is the enemy of freedom, and I hope freedom wins.
Quote:
And it was your statement.

What was my statement?
Dialogist
You just keep arguing with yourself, fella, and give me a bell when you've figured out that even you don't agree with you.

Recap:

Dialogist wrote:

Security...


Dialogist wrote:

Freedom...


Dialogist wrote:

Marry the two...


---------------------------

ocalhoun wrote:

They are diametrically opposed; they can never be fully combined.


Freedom (the right to bare arms) and security (owning a gun) can never be fully combined? Diametric opposing opposites can be fully combined. It's called a dichotomy, but I see no reason to help you out as this point. This is your argument; that freedom to bare arms is essential and that it is for security yet you don't seem to see the irony of you yourself saying it is impossible to have both, you miss the paradox completely and yet you yourself keep digging down deeper without me even having to say anything.


ocalhoun wrote:

I'm afraid you're wrong here.
By some estimates, it exists 2.5 million times per year... only counting self-defense uses, and not the other 5 uses I mentioned [all which relating to self defense, "freedom" and needless hunting].
Some examples: [inserts several anecdotes about self-defense gun usage as 'positive' reasons for]


ocalhoun wrote:

Just because the attacker doesn't have a gun doesn't mean a gun can't be used for defense.


ocalhoun wrote:

Which is a great bonus. Sometimes you can scare off an attacker by just showing the gun, or just firing a warning shot.


ocalhoun wrote:

I have no wish to 'marry' security and freedom.


ocalhoun wrote:

Security is the enemy of freedom


*scratches head*

ocalhoun wrote:

What was my statement?


Pick one! It's actually difficult to find one that is consistent with the next. This one is my favorite so far though:

ocalhoun wrote:

There are circumstances where you can kill both morally and legally. - and these circumstances are what guns were invented for.


In short, your argument fails triumphantly because a "right" is a "freedom to" and a gun can only be excused as a means to defend oneself against more guns (paradox notwithstanding and solution's blinding obviousness aside), you yourself just said that security and freedom are incompatible. If only your arguments didn't follow suit.
deanhills
Dialogist wrote:
You just keep arguing with yourself, fella, and give me a bell when you've figured out that even you don't agree with you.

Recap:

Dialogist wrote:

Security...


Dialogist wrote:

Freedom...


Dialogist wrote:

Marry the two...


---------------------------

ocalhoun wrote:

They are diametrically opposed; they can never be fully combined.

I've not responded in this discussion up to now, as I saw this as a twosome discussion between you and Ocalhoun, but have to comment at this juncture as I don't see Ocalhoun arguing with himself. Security and freedom are diametrically opposed. I believe that to be secure, one has to give up some of one's freedom. That is common sense. So the two cannot be married.
Dialogist wrote:
Freedom (the right to bare arms) and security (owning a gun) can never be fully combined? Diametric opposing opposites can be fully combined. It's called a dichotomy, but I see no reason to help you out as this point. This is your argument; that freedom to bare arms is essential and that it is for security yet you don't seem to see the irony of you yourself saying it is impossible to have both, you miss the paradox completely and yet you yourself keep digging down deeper without me even having to say anything.
I don't see any paradox here, but playing with words. "The right to bare arms" is not equal to freedom. There is a big difference between a right (i.e. that is bestowed on you through rules and regulations), and freedom to own a gun without it having to be bestowed as a freedom in the first place. Owning the gun for self-protection comes at the expense of a number of rules and regulations that curb the freedom of using that gun. You have to be of a certain age, you have to have demonstrated ability to use the gun, have a perfect record, have studied the law as to how to stow the gun safely, report it when it is stolen, not own a stolen gun, etc. etc. There are plenty of freedoms that are curtailed, in order to look after the safety of the public in general, and that comes at the expense of some of the freedoms of the guy who owns the guns.
ocalhoun
Dialogist wrote:
This is your argument; that freedom to bare arms is essential and that it is for security yet you don't seem to see the irony of you yourself saying it is impossible to have both, you miss the paradox completely and yet you yourself keep digging down deeper without me even having to say anything.

Perhaps I should be more specific:
State-sponsored security is the enemy of state-sponsored freedom.


When viewed on a purely individual basis, yes things change a bit.
Dialogist
ocalhoun wrote:
Dialogist wrote:
This is your argument; that freedom to bare arms is essential and that it is for security yet you don't seem to see the irony of you yourself saying it is impossible to have both, you miss the paradox completely and yet you yourself keep digging down deeper without me even having to say anything.

Perhaps I should be more specific:
State-sponsored security is the enemy of state-sponsored freedom.


I agree with that. But I wasn't really arguing that though. It's not a freedom that is to be given that I was talking about. It is one that is to be returned.
Dialogist
deanhills wrote:

Security and freedom are diametrically opposed. I believe that to be secure, one has to give up some of one's freedom.


Which was precisely my argument. I just related that to ocalhoun because I'd be dishonest not to, even if hurts my argument (slightly). Anyone who's ever logged in to talk to family on facebook or used online banking finds a lot of freedom in security. Security can coexist with freedom and in many cases is imperative to it's preservation. This is why we have pension plans, so that we can be free to retire when our bodies are too old to work. Some people call this "security". It's really just freedom. Security has its place and I'd be a fool to not recognize that but imposed/enforced needless security (ie: me even having my arm twisted into buying a murder weapon with the dark acceptance that yeah, okay, so some day, I may have to be forced into murdering somebody - because guns are everywhere, is not the kind of security that is synonymous with freedom. But they are not diametrically opposed. Nothing really is. Men and Women are both human beings. The North and South poles are both poles. Life and death are both states of existence. Love and hate are both emotions. Freedom and captivity are both largely dependent on external bodies. etc


deanhills wrote:
I don't see any paradox here


How about, "I want the right to be free to be feared into taking away other's freedom". Is that enough of a paradox? I doubled it up in case you missed the first one. The question is, who is making this statement? The crackhead burglar with a gun or the father of two kids who lives down the street from him? It's anyone's guess.

deanhills wrote:

"The right to bare arms" is not equal to freedom. There is a big difference between a right (i.e. that is bestowed on you through rules and regulations), and freedom to own a gun without it having to be bestowed as a freedom in the first place.


Now you're playing with words. I have the right to bear arms (on basic freedom) by simply just deciding to pick up a gun from the table. I have the right to bear a nuclear reactor if I find myself in that kind of environment with nobody looking. By that rationale, I have the right to do anything, as long as I don't get caught.

deanhills wrote:

Owning the gun for self-protection comes at the expense of a number of rules and regulations that curb the freedom of using that gun. You have to be of a certain age, you have to have demonstrated ability to use the gun, have a perfect record, have studied the law as to how to stow the gun safely, report it when it is stolen, not own a stolen gun, etc. etc.


And only then are you allowed to have the means to murder somebody? If that were true it would still be wrong, but its not true. Columbine, Penn State, Virginia Tech etc. Take your pick. It would be foolish of me (here I go again arguing for the other side) to presume that everyone with a gun is going to kill somebody with it, just as it would be that everyone with a tongue is going to yell "fire" in a crowded theater. The difference is, presenting somebody with the means to murder (legally) delivers what kind of message exactly? That, in a last resort... That, maybe somebody you'll need to sort of... That, hey, you're free! God bless America! What a load of bullshit. Again, can we just evolve please?

deanhills wrote:

There are plenty of freedoms that are curtailed, in order to look after the safety of the public in general, and that comes at the expense of some of the freedoms of the guy who owns the guns.


Like what? They have to get a license? Well, wow, what a hassle.



This guy must have been really inconvenienced by the rigorousness of that peer review.

Once you make guns legal you pacify murder, and once you do that you devalue human life, and once you've done that (which we have) we don't have any humanity worth securing anymore. Two fold: We contemplate becoming murderers to prevent murder (another paradox) or instead, we pretend that the slavery of having to keep a gun is some sort of 'freedom' (another) whereby the only way we'll truly be free from this kind of freedom is if we point it at our own heads (two more for good measure).
deanhills
Dialogist wrote:
This is why we have pension plans, so that we can be free to retire when our bodies are too old to work. Some people call this "security". It's really just freedom.
Shocked I can't get how security can be freedom at the same time Dialogist. A Pension Fund does not make us free. If the Pension Fund has insufficient funds, we may be trapped even more than what we would have been when we had to work our butts off to fill it up with cash. I don't have a Pension Fund. And I think when one does not have a Pension Fund one is more free and than when one has a Pension Fund.
Dialogist wrote:
deanhills wrote:
I don't see any paradox here
"I want the right to be free to be feared into taking away other's freedom".
You're getting way too complicated for me here to the point of my eyes crossing and my brain cells scrambling to unscramble the message. I don't understand what this sentence means. Is it a three in one sentence? (1) I want the right to be free (2) This right must be feared (3) When this right is feared it will take away someone else's freedom. I don't get this.

Regardless of the above however, I've mentioned it previously. Freedom is supposed to be a natural right. The moment when it is legalized, it takes some of the freedom away.

Dialogist wrote:
Now you're playing with words. I have the right to bear arms (on basic freedom) by simply just deciding to pick up a gun from the table. I have the right to bear a nuclear reactor if I find myself in that kind of environment with nobody looking. By that rationale, I have the right to do anything, as long as I don't get caught.
...... and you are accusing me of playing with words? Twisted Evil

Dialogist wrote:
deanhills wrote:
Owning the gun for self-protection comes at the expense of a number of rules and regulations that curb the freedom of using that gun. You have to be of a certain age, you have to have demonstrated ability to use the gun, have a perfect record, have studied the law as to how to stow the gun safely, report it when it is stolen, not own a stolen gun, etc. etc.


And only then are you allowed to have the means to murder somebody? If that were true it would still be wrong, but its not true. Columbine, Penn State, Virginia Tech etc. Take your pick. It would be foolish of me (here I go again arguing for the other side) to presume that everyone with a gun is going to kill somebody with it, just as it would be that everyone with a tongue is going to yell "fire" in a crowded theater. The difference is, presenting somebody with the means to murder (legally) delivers what kind of message exactly? That, in a last resort... That, maybe somebody you'll need to sort of... That, hey, you're free! God bless America! What a load of bullshit. Again, can we just evolve please?
I'm getting exhausted here Dialogist. I can't imagine a majority of people owning guns, in order to murder others. That is your perception. And one that does not make sense to me.
Dialogist wrote:
deanhills wrote:
There are plenty of freedoms that are curtailed, in order to look after the safety of the public in general, and that comes at the expense of some of the freedoms of the guy who owns the guns.
Like what? They have to get a license? Well, wow, what a hassle.
Hopefully you are being sarcastic here, and if you are, I'm in favour of guns being licensed. I'd prefer only competent people to be able to own and use a gun for obvious reasons and in the exact same way that people also need other licenses, like driving a car for example.
Dialogist wrote:
Once you make guns legal you pacify murder, and once you do that you devalue human life, and once you've done that (which we have) we don't have any humanity worth securing anymore. Two fold: We contemplate becoming murderers to prevent murder (another paradox) or instead, we pretend that the slavery of having to keep a gun is some sort of 'freedom' (another) whereby the only way we'll truly be free from this kind of freedom is if we point it at our own heads (two more for good measure).
Weird line of "logical" thinking. Again, what about all the other ways of murdering people, by having poison around or knives, bows and arrows, motor vehicles, think of all the ways people can be murdered, and those ways then by your argument then needing to be removed otherwise they would pacify murder. Motor vehicles are more responsible for deaths than gun shots by the way. So do we then say that ownership of motor vehicles should be made illegal? Or that the drivers who are driving irresponsibly, or under the influence of liquor, or road rage, or aggressively, should be sorted out in the first place?
Dialogist
People need to get from A to B. Cars are convenient and necessary. I've already covered this anyway with the part about having a tongue and yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. Fact of the matter is, theoretically, you could kill somebody by just sleeping in. But that does nothing to detract the severity of handing somebody a device that has one purpose and one purpose only - to kill or seriously maim, and saying 'hey, it's patriotic'.

Thomas Jefferson, writing to his teenaged nephew wrote:

As to the species of exercise, I advise the gun. While this gives [only] moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise, and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun, therefore, be the constant companion to your walks.


We're not even talking about murder anymore are we? We're talking about Momma's apple pie. But it doesn't stop with whimsical tradition. It's law. We have no choice. Fortunately, though, deanhills, neither of us seem to pledge allegiance to this oxymoron if you do indeed stand by your arguments:

The Second Amendment wrote:

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.


deanhills wrote:

I can't get how security can be freedom at the same time


There's actually two clangers in that bill of rights. Let me just point out the second real quick:

The Second Amendment wrote:

of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


This is the government ("the free state") declaring the inability to regulate guns. HAHA. And even passing a law in congress to inhibit any future attempt to. Actually, come to think of it, it's not funny. Its idiocy and stupidity of promoting a citizen "militia" has mild comedic value but long term, it is actually quite ludicrous and revolting. Also, it concedes freedom to govern. Nice work, government!

I normally look to Jesus for moralistic rights but when he predates modern instruments such a guns, I have to look to people like Gandhi. Unfortunately, he agrees with ocalhoun on this one too.

Mohandas Gandhi wrote:

Among the many misdeeds of British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest.


I just can't win. I feel the world has deserted me on a very simple moralistic right. Then again, he did say "an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind" too didn't he? Slice of contradiction pie, anyone?

"I want the right to be free to be feared into taking away other's freedom", means that everyone cannot have freedom this way. The transgressor against the defender. One of their guns didn't buy them freedom, either one loses or they both do (and the latter is the more likely scenario). "The right to be free" is a paradox. You're asking somebody for permission. "to be feared into..." is a paradox. You're asking for the freedom to be in fear (a double paradox even, because fear is the thing you're trying to avoid, let alone requesting the right to be enslaved.) Which is like, why bother? Stay as you are, same outcome. "...into taking away other's freedom", the freedom to inhibit another's freedom, ie: The slavery of dragging him down with you. Whether he be a) a peaceful pacifist, forced into gun ownership or b) an aggressive criminal having his freedom of 'do what thou wilt' impeded upon by yours. Or perhaps the paradigm this all nests in - the fact that freedom and guns have about as much in common as heaven and hell do. I've lost count at around about 7 contradictions in terms in that one sentence, but I know there's a lot.

deanhills wrote:

I can't imagine a majority of people owning guns, in order to murder others. That is your perception.


My straw man is taking a real pummeling in this thread, the poor guy. The right to own a deadly murder weapon, with the suggestion of someday being required to form a people's party "militia" worries the hell out of me. That's enough for me. It reminds me of the Klu Klux Klan. Rifle toting town's people out for the good of the motherland. I think the US is probably immune to revolutions because we legalize and even encourage them? Albeit, whenever a man speeds over the specified limit, isn't the first thing the cops do is check to see if they can "infringe" on his right to bear arms? Are you arguing a case of "ornamental keepage" deanhills? Because if a man takes the government up on this "regulated militia" (in times of a crisis), say, the police are closing in on his Wako home where his religious cult stays at, they burn him down to the ground and say he did it himself? This bill of rights, is fraudulent is it not? So if it is not respected by those who enforce it, why adhere to it at the cost of thousands of American lives a year? Why not come to the realization that if that government approved situation ever arises, and you man your weapon, you'll be gunned down in heartbeat? I mean, they've got tanks, and fighter jets. You and ocalhoun have comparative pop-guns and peashooters. And they don't respect your right to bear arms against them, clearly. So this man-love for guns, overall? It is absolute nonsense. And all it can ever hope to achieve if it succeeds or fails is murder. All I am saying, is, give peace a chance.

deanhills wrote:

I'm in favour of guns being licensed.


I'm in favor of them being melted down to build structures for the homeless and taxed extortionate amounts until we can seize them all. I don't think we'd make much money from them though, as these people who really value their "freedom" aren't willing to pay for it (that's the last one, in there, I promise).
deanhills
Dialogist wrote:
People need to get from A to B. Cars are convenient and necessary. I've already covered this anyway with the part about having a tongue and yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. Fact of the matter is, theoretically, you could kill somebody by just sleeping in. But that does nothing to detract the severity of handing somebody a device that has one purpose and one purpose only - to kill or seriously maim, and saying 'hey, it's patriotic'.
I don't see the purpose of a fire arm as a singular one for killing or seriously maiming. Aren't we repeating ourselves here however? Maybe we just have to agree that we disagree Twisted Evil

Dialogist wrote:
I'm in favor of them being melted down to build structures for the homeless and taxed extortionate amounts until we can seize them all. I don't think we'd make much money from them though, as these people who really value their "freedom" aren't willing to pay for it (that's the last one, in there, I promise).
Well, if you want to go for melting down tools for murder, you're probably going to be pretty busy for the rest of your life. Going to be pretty disappointing at the end however, as you may find that after all the guns have been banned and melted down, people have found a novel way to create their own laser guns, that are even more effective than the traditional "antique" bullet type ones. There are always more than one way to skin a cat .... Twisted Evil
ocalhoun
Dialogist wrote:

This is the government ("the free state") declaring the inability to regulate guns. HAHA. And even passing a law in congress to inhibit any future attempt to. Actually, come to think of it, it's not funny. Its idiocy and stupidity of promoting a citizen "militia" has mild comedic value but long term, it is actually quite ludicrous and revolting. Also, it concedes freedom to govern. Nice work, government!

'free state' refers to the freedom of the citizens of that state, not the freedom of the state itself.
I'd go even further and say that it is essential for the government of a free state to be severely limited, or it won't stay free for long.
Quote:

I just can't win. I feel the world has deserted me on a very simple moralistic right.

When the whole world is against you, it may be time to reevaluate your position.
I've done this several times in the past, and each time, it improved my worldview greatly.
Quote:
Then again, he did say "an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind" too didn't he? Slice of contradiction pie, anyone?

No contradiction there.
Have guns. Don't use them for revenge.
Contradiction solved.
Quote:

"I want the right to be free to be feared into taking away other's freedom"

Try instead, "I want the right to own the tools for preventing others from taking away my freedom."
Makes a lot more sense.





Quote:

The right to own a deadly murder weapon, with the suggestion of someday being required to form a people's party "militia" worries the hell out of me.

Who said you would be forced to join a people's party militia?
Though, you could be drafted into the army, gun owner or not.
Quote:
That's enough for me. It reminds me of the Klu Klux Klan. Rifle toting town's people out for the good of the motherland.


*looks*
*stares at it some more*
Nope... Doesn't remind me of the KKK.
Quote:
I think the US is probably immune to revolutions because we legalize and even encourage them?

No country is immune to revolutions, because no country is immune from the corruption and abuse that makes revolutions necessary.
Quote:
Albeit, whenever a man speeds over the specified limit, isn't the first thing the cops do is check to see if they can "infringe" on his right to bear arms?

Not where I live, anyway, not just for a speeding ticket.
I've been pulled over, made clear that I have a gun (for my safety from trigger-happy cops), and been told 'don't worry about it, just show me license and registration'.

Sure, they disarm you if you get arrested, but being arrested strips you of a lot of other rights as well.
Quote:
This bill of rights, is fraudulent is it not? So if it is not respected by those who enforce it, why adhere to it at the cost of thousands of American lives a year?

To make it less fraudulent.
Quote:
Why not come to the realization that if that government approved situation ever arises, and you man your weapon, you'll be gunned down in heartbeat? I mean, they've got tanks, and fighter jets. You and ocalhoun have comparative pop-guns and peashooters.

Right.
Because if there's anything we've learned from Iraq and Afghanistan, it's that a (small) poorly trained and equipped force of natives with local support has absolutely no chance against tanks and jets. ^.^
Quote:

deanhills wrote:

I'm in favour of guns being licensed.

these people who really value their "freedom" aren't willing to pay for it (that's the last one, in there, I promise).

We already paid for it. It's ours.
So, no, we're not willing to pay for it again.
Dialogist
ocalhoun wrote:

'free state' refers to the freedom of the citizens of that state, not the freedom of the state itself.


It is actually intended to mean both (it sort of has to). Either way, you still have the state granting permission to this "right".



ocalhoun wrote:

I'd go even further and say that it is essential for the government of a free state to be severely limited, or it won't stay free for long.


Would you also go so far as to say that severely limited governments are a cake walk to overthrow? And if indeed that if the "free state" is actually the people under it's rule, that it is that which will not stay free for long?

ocalhoun wrote:

When the whole world is against you, it may be time to reevaluate your position.


You'd think, wouldn't you?















However, no.

If we have made any progression historically is it due to the exact opposite of that position.

ocalhoun wrote:

I've done this several times in the past, and each time, it improved my worldview greatly.


That is debatable and subject to your own personal view of your own personal worldview. If you have capitulated your objective morality for the sake of affable congruency or argumentum ad populum, then you can consider that anything but an improvement.

The proposition that, okay, I was wrong, killing people is fine, is not subject to opinion. It is a universal truth that I am not prepared to pollute or diminish, because when you at first begin to concede basic and obvious objectivity in lieu of instinct, moralistic right and courage of conviction, you've lost. You have nothing more to add. You may as well be dead because you've sold your soul already.

ocalhoun wrote:

No contradiction there.
Have guns. Don't use them for revenge.
Contradiction solved.


Using them in self defense is using them in preemptive revenge. So in short, have guns, just don't use them at all. What's the point in having a lethal killing device that you've agreed to not use? a) its a redundant object and b) it is available to others who haven't agreed (and we know realistically, that is everyone who has mindfully acquired one). Nobody buys something they never intend to use. Not even gravestones.

ocalhoun wrote:

Try instead, "I want the right to own the tools for preventing others from taking away my freedom."
Makes a lot more sense.


It doesn't because the criminal is saying the same thing. I want a tool that prevents others from taking away my freedom. He is actually the reason would-be victims of his freedom want to take away his freedom and pretend that this grants them freedom further paradoxed by the fact that when they absolutely take away his freedom (with his life) they then become the criminal and round and round the merry go round we go. Very similar to revolutions in that respect. Always replacing a despot with a despot. There is no freedom concerning the right to kill somebody. Somebody is always an eternally enslaved victim of somebody else's right to freedom. Most people view death row as inhumane. That's because they see it is as uncivilized to take a man's life for his crimes, no matter what they are. You seem to think it is permissible to take man's life for the same very 'crime' you are committing - owning a gun with the propensity to point it at another human being, with a allusion to kill. This is horribly flawed and precisely as circular as the reason for feeling the need to possess a firearm is.

ocalhoun wrote:

Who said you would be forced to join a people's party militia?
Though, you could be drafted into the army, gun owner or not.


Yet another straw man. I used the word "suggestion", quite reasonably, as the word "militia" is used literally as an example or even a reason why one might need a gun in the 2nd amendment itself. This pretty much condones the notion, regardless of idealistic suppositions about people teaming up to protect against alien invasion or whatever the hell was the mindless, callous and arguably reckless thinking in making a suggestion like that, in the constitution's bill of rights, of all places.

I already said that armed services are the only people who should have access to firearms at the top of the thread and this is under the understanding that states (like the UK) with a considerably low gun owning population do not require their police to carry them. You made some silly statement like "move to the UK then". Why don't you move to Afghanistan and leave the land of the free to fulfill the liberty it falsely espouses to? I say this as US war ships near Libya. Because just like the US, freedom is not optional.

ocalhoun wrote:

*looks*
*stares at it some more*
Nope... Doesn't remind me of the KKK.


Knowing that you googled "black guy with gun" to find gunblackguy.jpg in order to demonstrate to me that the means to murder has equality is enough for me.

ocalhoun wrote:

No country is immune to revolutions, because no country is immune from the corruption and abuse that makes revolutions necessary.


No revolution is necessary because revolutions simply don't work. While a country may revolt, the product and outcome of militant uprising has never been desirable or successful.

ocalhoun wrote:

I've been pulled over, made clear that I have a gun (for my safety from trigger-happy cops), and been told 'don't worry about it


[citation needed]

ocalhoun wrote:

To make it less fraudulent.


I agree. Let's start by taking away the right to guns. Oh, wait, that's the only one you agree with because you have deluded yourself that this gives you a right to overthrow the government, who's subject to change bill of rights these belong to. You can either be grateful for the delusion, or change it to suit more delusions, but you can't have both. It just doesn't work that way.

ocalhoun wrote:

Right.
Because if there's anything we've learned from Iraq and Afghanistan, it's that a (small) poorly trained and equipped force of natives with local support has absolutely no chance against tanks and jets.


So that's the idealism? To turn America in to Iraq? Because you would in trying to overthrow the government. And that is the libertarian utopia that you envision? Only problem is, you wouldn't last 8 years because you wouldn't have the funding and support of a massive Islamic network in the middle east and indeed the majority of the Arab world. The government in the US could shut down the American people by simply turning off their internet or if push came to shove, canceling their credit cards. You could threaten the entire nation of American anarchists by simply changing the password to their Facebook account because in comparison to Iraqi and Pakistani freedom fighters, they are thoroughly bitchmade, sheltered and over entitled, often pathetically obese and have never been in a war zone in their lives. Then comparing your resilience to that of the Iraqis who are prepared to strap explosives about their person simply because you've shot a few chickens, is another audaciously laughable delusion.

ocalhoun wrote:

We already paid for it. It's ours.
So, no, we're not willing to pay for it again.


Reason for requested refund: "Item significantly not as described". If you've already bought freedom (lol), what do you need a gun for? To enforce freedom? (lol). I hope you kept the receipt.
ocalhoun
Dialogist wrote:

ocalhoun wrote:

I'd go even further and say that it is essential for the government of a free state to be severely limited, or it won't stay free for long.


Would you also go so far as to say that severely limited governments are a cake walk to overthrow? And if indeed that if the "free state" is actually the people under it's rule, that it is that which will not stay free for long?

Easier to overthrow? Yes.
More likely to be overthrown? No.
The most effective barrier to a revolution is a populace that has no reason to revolt.
The usual reason to overthrow a government is that the government has become abusive -- but if the government doesn't have the power to become abusive, this doesn't happen.
Quote:

ocalhoun wrote:

When the whole world is against you, it may be time to reevaluate your position.


You'd think, wouldn't you?

However, no.

If we have made any progression historically is it due to the exact opposite of that position.

Reevaluate, not automatically revoke.
In that situation, you need to go over your position, starting with questioning all your beginning assumptions...
If your position survives the reevaluation intact, by all means, continue... but it is important to not waste energy defending a position you're not sure of.
Quote:

That is debatable and subject to your own personal view of your own personal worldview. If you have capitulated your objective morality for the sake of affable congruency or argumentum ad populum, then you can consider that anything but an improvement.

You've got the wrong view of it there... You don't blindly accept others' viewpoints. You compare them honestly to your own, then rebuild your worldview based on what you've learned -- which may still include a large portion of your original views... perhaps all of them.
Quote:

The proposition that, okay, I was wrong, killing people is fine, is not subject to opinion.

But there are situations where killing people is fine.
(Namely, self-defense, defense of others, and unavoidable accident.)
Quote:

Using them in self defense is using them in preemptive revenge.

Preemptive revenge? That's an odd oxymoron you've invented there...
And no, defense (be it preemptive or not) is different and distinct from revenge, though not always.
Defense is motivated by preventing current or future aggression.
Revenge is motivated by punishing for or getting even for past aggression. (Or other past offense)

There's a reason that killing for defense is okay, while killing for revenge is not.
Quote:

ocalhoun wrote:

Try instead, "I want the right to own the tools for preventing others from taking away my freedom."
Makes a lot more sense.


It doesn't because the criminal is saying the same thing.

No, the criminal is saying, "I want the tools to take away others' freedom."
Quote:
the fact that when they absolutely take away his freedom (with his life) they then become the criminal and round and round the merry go round we go.

Actually, you're wrong there.
In many jurisdictions, self-defense with lethal force is not a crime.
Quote:
Very similar to revolutions in that respect. Always replacing a despot with a despot. There is no freedom concerning the right to kill somebody. Somebody is always an eternally enslaved victim of somebody else's right to freedom. Most people view death row as inhumane. That's because they see it is as uncivilized to take a man's life for his crimes, no matter what they are.

It is wrong to take a man's life for his past crimes.
It is acceptable to take a man's life to prevent his future crimes, though -- IF his future crimes are worse than the loss of killing him.
Quote:
You seem to think it is permissible to take man's life for the same very 'crime' you are committing - owning a gun with the propensity to point it at another human being, with a allusion to kill.

Owning the gun is not the crime.
Killing is the crime.
Yet, killing in self-defense is not a crime. A gun owner who only intends to use it for self defense is committing no crime, nor even any moral wrong.
Quote:

ocalhoun wrote:

Who said you would be forced to join a people's party militia?
Though, you could be drafted into the army, gun owner or not.


Yet another straw man. I used the word "suggestion", quite reasonably, as the word "militia" is used literally as an example or even a reason why one might need a gun in the 2nd amendment itself. This pretty much condones the notion, regardless of idealistic suppositions about people teaming up to protect against alien invasion or whatever the hell was the mindless, callous and arguably reckless thinking in making a suggestion like that, in the constitution's bill of rights, of all places.

I already said that armed services are the only people who should have access to firearms at the top of the thread and this is under the understanding that states (like the UK) with a considerably low gun owning population do not require their police to carry them. You made some silly statement like "move to the UK then". Why don't you move to Afghanistan and leave the land of the free to fulfill the liberty it falsely espouses to? I say this as US war ships near Libya. Because just like the US, freedom is not optional.

If there's some over-arching purpose that these two paragraphs have, I've missed it...
They seem to just jump all over the place, making all sorts of points, but none of the points made are related to each other... Should I respond sentence-by-sentence again?
Quote:

Knowing that you googled "black guy with gun" to find gunblackguy.jpg in order to demonstrate to me that the means to murder has equality is enough for me.

'black guy with rifle', actually.
Would you like to suggest a more politically correct search term to find such an image?
Quote:

[quote="ocalhoun"]
No revolution is necessary because revolutions simply don't work. While a country may revolt, the product and outcome of militant uprising has never been desirable or successful.

You're not much for studying history, are you?
...Or perhaps you just have an uncommonly poor opinion of the various nations in the world that have resulted from revolutions...
(Hint: not all revolutions are communist revolutions.)
Quote:

ocalhoun wrote:

I've been pulled over, made clear that I have a gun (for my safety from trigger-happy cops), and been told 'don't worry about it


[citation needed]

Sure... I'll just go down to the police station and demand their video/voice recordings.
I'm sure they'll be very cooperative... and have no problem with me posting them on the internet.
Quote:

I agree. Let's start by taking away the right to guns.

Well, I meant to make the rights less fraudulent by enforcing and adhering to them... not by getting rid of them.
Quote:
Oh, wait, that's the only one you agree with because you have deluded yourself that this gives you a right to overthrow the government, who's subject to change bill of rights these belong to.

No, it's not the only one I agree with. In fact, I'd like to add some more, if given the opportunity.
As for revolutions, they are only needed when the government has taken away one's natural rights... as such, the right to revolt against an abusive authority is the most fundamental of them all -- and the one that enables access to the others when the others have been revoked.

Really, would you tell the citizens of a very oppressed country they have no right to revolt?
I feel like I'm debating an old-school royalist... I almost expect to hear 'divine right to rule' any moment now...
Quote:


So that's the idealism? To turn America in to Iraq? Because you would in trying to overthrow the government. And that is the libertarian utopia that you envision? Only problem is, you wouldn't last 8 years because you wouldn't have the funding and support of a massive Islamic network in the middle east and indeed the majority of the Arab world. The government in the US could shut down the American people by simply turning off their internet or if push came to shove, canceling their credit cards. You could threaten the entire nation of American anarchists by simply changing the password to their Facebook account because in comparison to Iraqi and Pakistani freedom fighters, they are thoroughly bitchmade, sheltered and over entitled, often pathetically obese and have never been in a war zone in their lives. Then comparing your resilience to that of the Iraqis who are prepared to strap explosives about their person simply because you've shot a few chickens, is another audaciously laughable delusion.

I know the citizens of the US are not as capable and hardened as the citizens of Afghanistan or Iraq, in general... and that there is (currently) little widespread international support for American revolutionaries.

However, these things are subject to change over time, as is the US government.
I do not advocate a revolution the way things are now... But some day in the future one may be needed.
The fact that a revolution would be likely futile and mostly unneeded right now doesn't mean that it will always be so. To assume that the populace will always be fat and complacent, and that the government will always be benign is overly idealistic and overly optimistic.
Quote:

Reason for requested refund: "Item significantly not as described". If you've already bought freedom (lol), what do you need a gun for? To enforce freedom? (lol). I hope you kept the receipt.

Yes, to enforce freedom.
If you don't have the ability to enforce your freedom, it can be taken away at any time.
That's why the right to enforce your own freedom is so important.
Related topics
Federal response to Katrina was faster than Hugo,
is Space exploration worth it?
Iowa Prof. Seeks Funding for 'Body Farm'
One-Eyed Cat Had Medical Condition
Whats your views on alcohol?
Ancient pyramid found in Mexico.
Think it's safe to trust your data on DVDs?
Engineering Degree
A question of faith - is faith immoral?
...all religion aside - is it wrong to be gay?
Bush & Bin Laden S.A.
Americans want universal health care. Why can't we get it?
Psychics "for entertainment only"
The End of the World is Nigh
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Politics

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.