Jump to content

I know Sarah Palin is an easy target and all, but...


Avesism

Recommended Posts

This forum is supported by the 12ozProphet Shop, so go buy a shirt and help support!
This forum is brought to you by the 12ozProphet Shop.
This forum is brought to you by the 12oz Shop.
  • Replies 148
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Which does what to support your argument? If anything the fact that people have the legal right to carry and choose not to, I think supports the argument for a similar kind of policy, because apparently, even if it is legal, and easier, not everyone is running around with a weapon, and killing things with them, you know the only reason a gun exist's in the first place.

 

The fundamental issue is the freedom to be able to defend yourself, the ones you love and your community from harm. Should the ability to do all of those things be taken away because, people work the system, and commit crimes?

 

I think the answer is a simple no.

 

Guns won't vanish once this happens. Nor with the desire for people to harm other people. The transaction's in illegal firearms would skyrocket, and the fight for the weapons would only increase. Mean while, how much safer did you really become?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which does what to support your argument? If anything the fact that people have the legal right to carry and choose not to, I think supports the argument for a similar kind of policy, because apparently, even if it is legal, and easier, not everyone is running around with a weapon, and killing things with them, you know the only reason a gun exist's in the first place.

 

The fundamental issue is the freedom to be able to defend yourself, the ones you love and your community from harm. Should the ability to do all of those things be taken away because, people work the system, and commit crimes?

 

I think the answer is a simple no.

 

Guns won't vanish once this happens. Nor with the desire for people to harm other people. The transaction's in illegal firearms would skyrocket, and the fight for the weapons would only increase. Mean while, how much safer did you really become?

 

Mate, in principal I agree with what you're saying here, the ability to defend yourself, liberty, etc. etc. However I'm not sure that in the end this policy/approach holds more benefits for society in general than not.

 

I see the Arizona situation differently than you. I see the result being that it simply increased the ability for nutjobs to increase their ability to commit murder at a rapid rate from a safer distance. IT didn't increase the amount of firearms among responsible individuals (the shooter was tackled, not shot by an armed citizen) and that may suggest that the people of Arizona would prefer the law to ensure their safety rather than taking that responsibility themselves (of course serious research would be needed to confirm that).

 

So I don't see this situation of being a good image for lax gun laws. People were given the choice to arm and protect themselves, they didn't and a nutjob was able to legally get a gun and kill a significant number of innocent people.

 

 

 

And I agree with your last point that increasing restrictions now wouldn't help. What I am arguing is that your lax gun laws are responsible for this result. If the laws were always tighter the option of further tightening them would be available, there would be more flexibility in policy making to increase or decrease weapons in society, that choice has gone now. Now you have a situation where it is easy to get guns meanign there are more in society and that it is much easier for irresponsible people to obtain guns.

 

 

I think this case alone (of course a case study doesn't make an argument) seems to support that view. The gun laws in Arizona didn't result in responsible people arming themselves but it did result in a nutjob arming himself and killing responsible people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just want to reiterate that point:

 

 

Arizona has lax gun laws.

 

 

The result was that the only person who carried and used a weapon was a nutjob who obtained the weapon legally.

 

obtaining weapons, legally, illegally, it doesnt really matter. if someone obtains a legal hammer from their basement to kill someone, what does this really prove? it proves that the person committed a crime and that no amount of talk of banning weapons is gonna fix this.

washington DC has essentially banned all guns, yet 6 people are shot there every day!

 

as well as allowing citizens to practice their natural rights and carry a firearm, doesnt guarantee that everyone carries one nor even is trained proficiently enough to use the firearm. at the other end of every bullet is a lawyer. most gun schools train people to only defend themselves and not to defend strangers due to liability. many people, including myself have a moral problem with this, but the fact remains any round that comes out of your weapon you are responsible for. is a 25 year or life prison sentence worth it if you try to defend someone else's life? tough questions

 

but....your point is moot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you need to brush up on your comprehension skills before you start discussing the credibility of others.

 

sorry man, anyone that posts information from the SPLC has to have their head examined.

 

I like how the pro-gun lobby always run away from three basic facts:

 

Guns are made for one thing, killing (ok, there are taget guns but they are a perversion of the original and are also have no other use than killing properties). Hammers, cars, hamburgers, machetes and everything else you guys like to mention are made for a completely different purpose and there original use is perverted by being used for killing. Guns have one role, to kill.

 

no one is 'running' away from any thing. the intent of a designer of a inanimate object really doesnt matter. someone has to pull the trigger. guns just dont grow legs and start firing off rounds. various other tools are designed to kill. various knives are made with the specific purpose of killing in mind. should these go? the point is absolutely meaningless. in fact i've even had people with the same ideology you have, tell me i was a psycho path capable of mass murder because i carry a pocket knife every day. 'what do you need that for if you are trying to hurt or maim someone!'

 

the part you dont want to address is how exactly an 80 year old 100 lb woman can defend herself against a 250 lb attacker who wants to steal her money she has hid in the mattress and has decided to kill this woman to get it. because you believe firearms, designed with the sole purpose of killing, you think this woman should be utterly defenseless. what recourse does the woman have? calling the cops? how will that work for her? they are always minutes away when seconds count. it seems to be the basic rule in the US that if you dial 911 for them to respond to a violent attacker, you will probably die. would you rather have an object designed to kill when you needed to defend your LIFE or would you rather not? i live in the land of gun racks in pick ups and in a land where there are lots of animal threats. wild boars and bears being high on the list. lots of people carry sidearms daily. would i rather have a side arm designed to kill if i am cornered by a boar or would i love the fact that my government has told me i cant defend myself with an object 'designed to kill?'

 

your point relies on sensationalism and doesnt address the fact that some people NEED to be incapacitated. anyone that is attempting to kill you or someone else, needs to be incapacitated. a firearm is merely a tool of self defense. and a tool that is very helpful to the severely disadvantaged, like the 80 year old woman.

 

so while you are pushing to have guns eliminated, which prohibition has proven to be impossible, you are also disarming the people who dont use them violently but would use them in self defense. you should focus on punishing the offender, not the people trying to defend themselves. why do you feel the need to allow only the criminals, who are breaking the law in the first place, to be the only ones armed? all gun laws merely result in victim disarmament. the government cannot even keep a massive drug trade out of federal prisons, how on earth are the going to eliminate crime and miraculously zap all guns off the planet?

 

 

How many people do you think you can kill with an AK and 5 mags in 5 mins compared to a machete? The comparison is ridiculous. Firearms kill with ease at distance, machetes, hammers, ball point pens don't. It is ridiculous that you guys even make such a comparison. Cars, a different issue, I will give you that. However, motor transport supports the national economy and the positives that they give to society vastly outweigh the negatives. How do firearms help the national economy and daily life like motor vehicles do? And to add to that, guns are made solely to kill, using a car to kill is a perversion of the original usage.

 

still trying to argue with the moralism. its a moot point.

i'd say an AK with 5 mags can kill less people in the hands of a non experienced user than a professional with a machete.

are you trying to say that the various genocides in africa that came from machete wielding mass murderers didnt happen or are some how less heinous because a firearm wasnt used? it still boils down to the fact that owning an inanimate object doesnt kill anyone. a person using it does.

 

since you dismiss the mass murdering instruments known as cars as having a much better affect on the GDP than firearms, and therefore cars are fine and guns are bad, i'd urge you to reexamine. i mean, what of all the gun manufacturers, gun stores and the like? what of all the evil greedy nazi americans that privately own guns? that shoot in 3 gun matches, that shoot F class, that engage in tactical shooting matches, that go to knob creek, that pay 30K for a fancy engraved skeet gun? do you realize how big shooting sports are in this country? you have guys putting down 5K just to have the gear that someone in 1st group has just to say he has it. the arms and related materials are huge in this country. not only that, but the mere fact that a firearm is the best means of SELF DEFENSE means more to most people than anything. how much would you pay to defend yourself? how much is your life worth? how much is your liberty worth? would you rather have an armed liberty loving populace if a real tyrannical hitler like power came into being, or would you rather have a nation similar to the jewish population that was herded into the warsaw ghetto in 1942 and 43? how much is your liberty worth? i know asking you that is silly, because you dont believe in such ideas at all to begin with.

 

 

So, in a state that has lax gun laws a nutjob was able to legally get a weapon and kill many people and none of the responsible people in the area chose to carry a gun.

 

just because a state has lax gun laws, doesnt mean that everyone is armed.

in fact it was to their detriment. in the same state last year a black man carried an AR15 to an obama rally. it is my understanding the rifle has to be unloaded. the entire nation had a shit fit. how many average people besides this guy are doing this with the national attitude on firearms?

 

its funny you try to use this line of thought. no one is saying that if you carry a gun in defense you are always the winner. im trying to say that if you carry a firearm, you have a CHANCE to defend yourself. why deny someone options and the liberty to choose said options? its hilarious to think that people with guns, arent the ones called on to diffuse situations like this. who do you call when someone is shooting someone? you call armed agents of the state. i know you realize this. this is where we differ. whereas i believe everyone has a right to self defense and the right to gun ownership to do it with, you believe only the state's agents have the right to use firearms. in fact the main reason why private citizens should have guns is to protect themselves from the agents of the state. in the US we believe in checks and balances. you cant just have an armed government and a disarmed population. look at all the stuff they have put on the american people from the patriot act to the being able to throw in you jail forever without being charged. imagine what they could do if there were no means of protection in the hands of the populace.

 

you place such strong emphasis on the mala prohibita legality of obtaining a firearm by a nut job. anyone with an ordinary legal kitchen knife can kill 6 people in a crowd very fast. maybe twice as slow as a firearm, but still, very fast and most importantly, the end result is the same. dead innocents. the tool matters not. even more dangerous is if said nut job put together an IED from house hold materials, all perfectly legal, and killed 5 times as many people, with much less work.

 

your point of 'why didnt someone shoot the guy' ignores the reality of these situations. these people go into these situations knowing they probably will be killed. considering how fast you like to point out it takes to fire off a full glock magazine, and then the guy attempts to flee, how long does it take for this to happen? seconds? how can people in a crowd even comprehend what is going on in that time let alone draw a weapon to return fire? defensive use of guns doesnt guarantee anything. it only allows someone to be fully equipped to have the ability to defend yourself.

 

your point about legal gun acquisition is moot. 6 people being killed in DC or any other big city is a daily or weekly occurrence. firearms are for conversational purposes banned in these places. no drug dealer, from which most killings stem from, goes into a gun store and purchases a registered firearm to kill other drug dealers with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I mean, go nuts, but does every thread in here have to end up turning into a gun control argument? We all know where you guys stand on both sides, we've read it in plenty of other threads. I figured this could be more used for discourse related to the subject, (means and consequences of political rhetoric from tea partiers, essentially) which I can understand gun control plays a role in, but to see the thread take a turn in that direction so sharply, it almost seems like you all would rather show (yet again) your (rhetorical) stance on gun control than on the intended discussion. Again, both sides are talking in circles here, saying nothing new, using piss poor grade school analogies, and basically wasting bandwidth, imo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It comes down to the fundamental issue, the right to bear arms. Which none of you want to touch as a legitimate base for this issue. But it IS the issue.

 

I continue to try to point out, this is not a class room discussion where a professor is setting the tone for what is being discussed. Like Theme points out, the "dangers of Tea Party rhetoric". That isn't the issue. The issue here is "This kid killed people, take guns away from everyone so this doesn't happen again!". You guys are setting the tone for the discussion here. Fuck that. If that is your solution to this problem, you are going to get the obvious shut down. That isn't the solution.

 

For some reason, the isolated incident's that occur (mass shootings) are just cause for every other person who does the right thing to lose the ability to hold a gun.

 

For most of you this is justice, for me that's stupid. To each their own.

 

If anything the fact that these things happen, and almost no citizen's are in a position to end the carnage, you must wait for the authorities to arrive and save the day. Which is usually already after several people have lost their lives. Perhaps if more people had the courage to carry a weapon, these incidents would drop, or at least the success rate would start to diminish.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isolated incidents, huh?

 

With the right to bear arms we've made it easy for criminals and nutjobs to get guns, the average person should now act responsibly and carry firearms too to stop the crims and nutjobs we've armed!! :D :D :D

 

 

Say hi to goldilocks and Sneezy the Dwarf in Fantasy Land for me, please mate!!! :p

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ok, trying to move it back on topic:

 

As to the rhetoric that is used on US news and current affairs shows, as an outsider I am always to astounded how everything seems to be such an us and them issue with people. the whole Liberal and Conservative adversarial identity is just astonishing. I'm yet to come across any other country (other than China during the Communist and Cultural Revolution....., which is interesting in itself) where society is so polarised along ideological lines like that. Then you have the race divide, the class/prosperity divide, the geographic north/south divide, etc.

 

The US is a very divided country in many ways and I can't see aggressive and violent semiology/symbolism being a very good thing for a divided society.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

how is it ridiculous when you are twice as likely to be killed by a car than by a firearm?

Here's an excerpt from a book I dug out of the closet that I found sort of relevant to your argument... It would appear that rich guys kill more people with the stroke of a pen than nut-jobs do with semi-automatic firearms.

 

“…more than five hundred thousand people worldwide die each year in road accidents: “Two-thirds of these deaths involve pedestrians,” he said, “of which one-third are children. Just in the United States about forty-two thousand people die per year because of auto collisions, nearly as many as the total number of Americans killed in Vietnam. Everybody knows someone who has died or been seriously injured in a car crash, yet cars have insinuated themselves into our social life- and into our psyches- so thoroughly that we somehow accept these deaths as inevitable, or not shocking, as opposed to perceiving them for what they are: a direct and predictable result of choosing to base our economic and social systems on this particular piece of technology.” What’s worse is that even more people die each year from respiratory illness stemming from auto-related airborne toxins than die from traffic crashes.

 

Lundberg also said to me, “We have become slaves to these machines. If a group of aliens came to this planet and said they would bring us all sorts of goodies like jet skis, tomatoes in January, computers , and so on (or at least they would bring them to the richest of us), on the multiple conditions that we offer up to them a yearly sacrifice of a half-million human lives, change our planet’s climate, individually spend increasing amounts of time serving them, and socially devote an ever-increasing amount of land and other resources to their service, we would rebel in a flash. Or at least I hope we would. But that’s the reality we face. And that’s the reality we accept. It’s a reality we don’t even talk about. More teenagers are killed by cars across the U.S. every afternoon than the fourteen high schoolers gunned down in Littleton. Everybody says that living in an inner city is dangerous, that you’re going to get shot. But the truth is that because of car crashes, suburbs are statistically far more dangerous places to live. I’ve proven this to people, and they still refuse to walk with me in downtown Seattle, but they’re perfectly happy to get in a car, just because it’s normal. We don’t talk about any of this because this violence- the violence of U.S. transportation policies- is so engrained into our psyches that we believe it is inevitable, and not the result of policy decisions and subsidies.”

 

It also seems that if prisons were really about public safety, those responsible for the three hundred thousand preventable cancer deaths per year would be behind bars. And if prisons were about protecting property, those who looted the Savings and Loans would be serving terms commensurate with the amount they cost the public (exactly how many years would Neil Bush’s billion dollars add up to?). Or, to combine the personal and the fiscal, if prisons were designed to both further public safety and protect our property, I can think of no better use than that they house those who have designed and put in place our nuclear weapons programs, for which every American man, woman, and child has been forced to pay more than twenty-one thousand dollars. We have received for this money not only the terror of living under the threat of nuclear annihilation, but, as a bonus (free with the purchase of a complete nuclear arsenal; some restrictions may apply), several major river systems that have been irradiated beyond any foreseeable eventual recovery, a generation of downwinders in eastern Washington, southern Nevada and Utah, Colorado, and several other states that have found themselves beset by leukemia and other cancers, and Rocky Flats, the Hanford Nuclear Reservations, Oak Ridge Reservation, and the Savannah River Site have all been hopelessly irridatiated. But wait! There’s more! For that same twenty-one thousand dollars we have received literally millions of tons of materials that will be dangerous in some cases for a quarter to half a million years. Under a just and reasonable judicial penal system concerned with public safety and order, the nasty-ass motherfuckers- or, depending on your perspective, the decent white men- who put in place the policies leading to these programs would be attending my creative writing classes, that is, when level four prisoners aren’t locked down.

 

Inhumane as SHU units across the country undoubtedly are, I’m not certain that I am unalterably opposed even to them. I’ve hear it said that approximately the same number of people control 95 percent of the world’s economy as are in solitary confinement in the United States. There can be little doubt as to which group has killed the greater number of people. The same would hold true for which group has stolen the most, especially if we include resources, and which group has most damaged the planet. It is entirely possible that we have the wrong population in solitary. But, of course, so long as those in power decide who goes in prison, those in power will not go to prison.”

 

-The Culture of Make Believe by Derrick Jensen

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

obtaining weapons, legally, illegally, it doesnt really matter. if someone obtains a legal hammer from their basement to kill someone, what does this really prove? it proves that the person committed a crime and that no amount of talk of banning weapons is gonna fix this.

 

Phew! Thank God this guy didn't have a hammer! Can you imagine the bloodshed?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's an excerpt from a book I dug out of the closet that I found sort of relevant to your argument... It would appear that rich guys kill more people with the stroke of a pen than nut-jobs do with semi-automatic firearms.

 

“…more than five hundred thousand people worldwide die each year in road accidents: “Two-thirds of these deaths involve pedestrians,” he said, “of which one-third are children. Just in the United States about forty-two thousand people die per year because of auto collisions, nearly as many as the total number of Americans killed in Vietnam. Everybody knows someone who has died or been seriously injured in a car crash, yet cars have insinuated themselves into our social life- and into our psyches- so thoroughly that we somehow accept these deaths as inevitable, or not shocking, as opposed to perceiving them for what they are: a direct and predictable result of choosing to base our economic and social systems on this particular piece of technology.” What’s worse is that even more people die each year from respiratory illness stemming from auto-related airborne toxins than die from traffic crashes.

 

Lundberg also said to me, “We have become slaves to these machines. If a group of aliens came to this planet and said they would bring us all sorts of goodies like jet skis, tomatoes in January, computers , and so on (or at least they would bring them to the richest of us), on the multiple conditions that we offer up to them a yearly sacrifice of a half-million human lives, change our planet’s climate, individually spend increasing amounts of time serving them, and socially devote an ever-increasing amount of land and other resources to their service, we would rebel in a flash. Or at least I hope we would. But that’s the reality we face. And that’s the reality we accept. It’s a reality we don’t even talk about. More teenagers are killed by cars across the U.S. every afternoon than the fourteen high schoolers gunned down in Littleton. Everybody says that living in an inner city is dangerous, that you’re going to get shot. But the truth is that because of car crashes, suburbs are statistically far more dangerous places to live. I’ve proven this to people, and they still refuse to walk with me in downtown Seattle, but they’re perfectly happy to get in a car, just because it’s normal. We don’t talk about any of this because this violence- the violence of U.S. transportation policies- is so engrained into our psyches that we believe it is inevitable, and not the result of policy decisions and subsidies.”

 

It also seems that if prisons were really about public safety, those responsible for the three hundred thousand preventable cancer deaths per year would be behind bars. And if prisons were about protecting property, those who looted the Savings and Loans would be serving terms commensurate with the amount they cost the public (exactly how many years would Neil Bush’s billion dollars add up to?). Or, to combine the personal and the fiscal, if prisons were designed to both further public safety and protect our property, I can think of no better use than that they house those who have designed and put in place our nuclear weapons programs, for which every American man, woman, and child has been forced to pay more than twenty-one thousand dollars. We have received for this money not only the terror of living under the threat of nuclear annihilation, but, as a bonus (free with the purchase of a complete nuclear arsenal; some restrictions may apply), several major river systems that have been irradiated beyond any foreseeable eventual recovery, a generation of downwinders in eastern Washington, southern Nevada and Utah, Colorado, and several other states that have found themselves beset by leukemia and other cancers, and Rocky Flats, the Hanford Nuclear Reservations, Oak Ridge Reservation, and the Savannah River Site have all been hopelessly irridatiated. But wait! There’s more! For that same twenty-one thousand dollars we have received literally millions of tons of materials that will be dangerous in some cases for a quarter to half a million years. Under a just and reasonable judicial penal system concerned with public safety and order, the nasty-ass motherfuckers- or, depending on your perspective, the decent white men- who put in place the policies leading to these programs would be attending my creative writing classes, that is, when level four prisoners aren’t locked down.

 

Inhumane as SHU units across the country undoubtedly are, I’m not certain that I am unalterably opposed even to them. I’ve hear it said that approximately the same number of people control 95 percent of the world’s economy as are in solitary confinement in the United States. There can be little doubt as to which group has killed the greater number of people. The same would hold true for which group has stolen the most, especially if we include resources, and which group has most damaged the planet. It is entirely possible that we have the wrong population in solitary. But, of course, so long as those in power decide who goes in prison, those in power will not go to prison.”

 

-The Culture of Make Believe by Derrick Jensen

 

dude makes some great points, however i reject some of the class warfare type conclusions.

 

i'd argue in the same regard as him although i'd go in a slightly different direction and argue that it isnt the 'rich' that are responsible for alot of mischief, it is governments. although, if i were to wear my class warfare goggles, one could easily see the governments are indeed the 'rich.' we hear lots and lots of news coverage about high profile murders of public officials. as i stated before, its not uncommon at all for 6 people to be killed in a week, and often in 1 day in many cities in the US. but the point is, the government is far more responsible for the death of innocents than any maniac wielding a glock 19. the US embargo on iraq in the 1990's, that devil woman called 'necessary and worth it' was responsible for thousands of iraqi's. civilian casualties in the WOT, are over 100K. stalin killed millions of his own people, yet the news media denied it and covered it up for years. why didnt we hear about with such extensive coverage as the 'lone nut gun man,' the predator drone strike a day before this shooting, murdering 6 people in wazirstan, that was operated by remote control from a building in las vegas? in fact this country has endured approximately 1400 deaths from 250 drone attacks, and the US is not even AT WAR WITH IT. what about the millions of japanese who were victims to US nuclear bombings? governments have used guns, gas chambers, 'collateral damage' in war, starvation, bombs,

and a myriad of means to kill between 170 and 240 million people in the 20h century. bill clinton made a glaring admission when he said... 'terrorism is killing robbery and coercion by people WHO DONT HAVE STATE AUTHORITY.' to the government, terrorism isnt terrorism, its policy.

 

the trend seems to be...the government can burn down a church and kill 80 people in it because they were supposedly 'deranged psychopathic cultist meth lab operating illegal firearms dealers' and the news defends the actions of the government.... then a 'private' mentally deranged murderer shoots a handful of people and its always the fault of freedom. 'LAX GUN LAWS!' or 'BLAH BLAH BLAH!'

 

yet we dont hear the news media talking about state violence, we only hear of lone nut gun men who murder innocents. apparently in the corporate media lexicon, predator drones, governments and their policies, arent harmful, only people with 'anti government' rhetoric, weird youtube video's, legally obtained handguns purchased in localities with 'lax gun laws' can inflict pain.

id argue that both are equally to be denounced and that murder is murder regardless of who does itand with whatever object. whether a gun or ice pick.

 

yes, LEVEL 75 PALADIN....

ONLY guns can kill people, right?

 

hand held weapons, could NEVER be used to kill massive amounts of people!

 

a-time-for-machetes-the-rwandan-genocide-the-killers-speak-13647347.jpeg

 

if some how it was possible to miraculously zap away all firearms from the globe, WHICH IT ISNT, people would use other things to commit heinous acts. in fact, surprise!, they use them now. if you take way all the house hold objects capable of inflicting pain, deranged murderers will begin using using sharpened tooth brushes like they were in the cell block

 

 

i'd also like to add, especially for christo-f, who already has bowed out of the discussion, that the guy who responded to the situation and tackled the gun man, was in fact armed and was on the news this morning saying that he carries a firearm and it gave him the confidence to tackle the shooter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AOD:

 

The man you claim puts all blame on the rich and not the government is actually an anarchist. I have read a few of his books and I will say that a common thesis that appears over and over is that there is a revolving door between industry and politics. He also thinks that the main purpose of government isn't to provide security to its nation, but instead to maximize production and facilitate resource extraction.

 

To go further with what you were saying: Millions of more people have been killed by bombs dropped from above by governments than by guns thrown at the waist by anarchists. Also, we look at the 3,000 deaths on 9/11/2001 as some huge atrocity. The World Trade buildings fall and this is bad... Yet 500,000 children die in poor countries every year as a result of debt repayment to the WTO and IMF and this is looked at as inevitable or just "part of the game" that we call the global economy. None of this shit would happen without the centralized power of governments which trickles down to the centralized power of the financial elite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

or is not part of some urban hipster liberal statist culture, knows the truth

 

This has got to be an illogical fallacy... Appeal to the hatred of hipsters fallacy, HA!

 

You need to work on these, because it hurts your argument, and makes your words less credible. Other than that, cheers.... you fucking capitalist. :p

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isolated incidents, huh?

 

With the right to bear arms we've made it easy for criminals and nutjobs to get guns, the average person should now act responsibly and carry firearms too to stop the crims and nutjobs we've armed!! :D :D :D

 

 

Say hi to goldilocks and Sneezy the Dwarf in Fantasy Land for me, please mate!!! :p

.

 

I thought you were done here? Or was that just another temper tantrum?

 

Go back in the corner, and think about your behavior young man.

 

To answer your italics point thought, without the right to bear arms, criminals and "nut jobs" will be able to obtain weapons ANYWAY. The right is actually a fundamental idea that the average person being able to protect himself from danger, and tyranny. Apparently you are comfortable with putting your life and the lives of your loved ones into the hands of others to come save the day. You can wait for your knight in shining armor. Me, I would rather rely on myself for that task.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the government should subsidize the gun industry even further, so then EVERYONE can afford one, instead of just gangsters, police departments and rich boys like AOD. Ask yourself... Would a rational, working class person spend $5000 on a state of the art Assault Rifle? Hell NO! The only working class person who would spend that kind of hard earned money is the crazy, paranoid, delusional radical right wing nutjobs... On paper I support community based militias over standing armies centrally ruled by the government any day of the week. But in the real world it seems that the only people that really want to assemble these militias are the radical, usually racist, off-kilter, misguided, uneducated, post-right wing conservative nutjobs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rich boys.

 

Seriously, I am the furthest thing from being rich, and I agree almost 100% with what AOD believes. I don't know his financial situation, but that is a stretch if I've ever seen one.

 

This kid wasn't even a radical right wing nut job, among his favorite books as listed on Myspace is the Communist Manifesto. Among other left wing literature.

 

Go figure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well... i agree with aod as usual, and ilots...

 

i don't believe the second amendment is at fault here, i don't think the punk should have ever been able to get his hands on a weapon in the first place with his mental condition. people around him were ignoring the signs and symptoms and basically leaving it up to him independently to seek out help for himself, where as i believe someone should have intervened in his life to help him overcome his sickness.

 

its just funny to me that after every crisis we are assaulted with authoritarian debate about how to further restrict our freedoms because society is too "crazy".

 

whatever

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the government should subsidize the gun industry even further, so then EVERYONE can afford one, instead of just gangsters, police departments and rich boys like AOD. Ask yourself... Would a rational, working class person spend $5000 on a state of the art Assault Rifle? Hell NO! The only working class person who would spend that kind of hard earned money is the crazy, paranoid, delusional radical right wing nutjobs... On paper I support community based militias over standing armies centrally ruled by the government any day of the week. But in the real world it seems that the only people that really want to assemble these militias are the radical, usually racist, off-kilter, misguided, uneducated, post-right wing conservative nutjobs.

 

rich boy!

this did indeed make my day.

i guess compared to something like a gutter punk kid that eats out of dumpsters, i am 'rich.' but not in the normal sense of the word. but if you mean work 10 hours a day, save money and just get by like most working class people...im not so sure this qualifies as 'rich.' but to each their own.

 

but being part of the gun culture, i would urge you to reconsider.

in fact, i'd argue the exact opposite.

most radical right wing working class nut jobs would never DREAM of spending 5K on an 'assault weapon.' in fact i cant even think of a single 'assault weapon' in the standard sense of the word that costs 5K. i know you are probably just going for effect, but still.

i'll break it down a little more... most 'radical right wing nut jobs' think they are 'teh awesomez' if they manage to scrape together a couple 2-300$ sks's and 1K rounds. we are talking well under 1000$ invested. this is half of a decent apple computer or only the price of a new ipad that most americans that are 'rational working class' citizens frothing at the mouth at. this is a fraction of the price most working class americans spend on a TV set.

 

in fact it is much much much more accurate to say that the 'non paranoid average middle class nra supporting mainline republican moderate voting' types would spend 5K on a single piece of weaponry. the precision marksmanship world comes to mind. it is nothing for a working class rational human being to spend 5K on a bolt gun and glass and go try to ping steel @ 1000 yards in a variety of conditions just to say they can do it. most of these people are the first to distance themselves from a 'hutaree' type militia group. in fact most of this crowd hates the idea of a militia all together, laughs at the idea in support of the federal military instead.

 

in fact there is a huge and diverse group of people interested in not only essentially privatizing self defense on a more local level but trying to come together in a community situation in the event of a natural disaster, etc. they come from all income levels, backgrounds, races, ethnicities, and genders. but i will give it to you though, most of the people you hear about talking about 'militia's' are the nut jobs as with all govt propaganda, they seek to demonize and focus on the aspects of a movement that are most out of step with it and the american people as a whole. say what you will about the mostly silly unmeaningful tea party movement, but you must admit, that these are probably the last people we should be worried about. ever been to a tea party rally? its 70-80% old retired people. who are these people going to harm? they want their social security checks, for petes sake. and its no different on the far left and its movements. you never hear about any of the run of the mill lefties partaking in peaceful activities, you only hear of anarchists throwing bombs at the G-20, earth first'ers monkey wrenching machinery, and anti war marches that result in violence almost exclusively due to police provocateurs.

 

but i digress, one more thing about the 'rich boys' thing.

 

its a fairly common treatment of someone who defends the rights of all groups of people to be some how lumped in with that group. if you argue against rent control with a lefty they quite often respond with ...'are you a land lord?' instead of anything meaningful. if you defend the right of the 'rich' not to be stolen from, all the left gets out of it is...'that guy must be a greedy rich A-hole!'

 

ideology is meaningless when talking about this shooter though... he was obviously a little wacked out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...