Old 31st January 2008, 06:00   #41
ryan
not fucked, not quite.
(Forum King)
 
ryan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Tn
Posts: 8,798
Send a message via AIM to ryan




ryan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31st January 2008, 06:53   #42
General Geoff
Major Dude
 
General Geoff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Allentown, Pennsylvania
Posts: 1,254
Send a message via ICQ to General Geoff Send a message via AIM to General Geoff
Quote:
Originally posted by fc*uk
.... back on topic, we can't even responsibly handle a hot beverage and you want people to handle a deadly weapon? No way.
That's a major problem we have with our society at the moment. You cannot have freedom without responsibility; and I'm afraid that a great percentage of Americans in this day and age would rather live without responsibility than with freedom (to a great degree). They want to know that the government will take care of them, no matter what. They don't want to worry about their future, their neighborhood, their children. They want the government to help.

I see that as a major problem that our society must overcome in order to return to the true "land of the free" that America once was. It's still probably the most free first world country, but it has fallen to near shambles compared to fifty years ago.

General Geoff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31st January 2008, 07:20   #43
Vie
Forum King
 
Vie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Thoron fields and Duranium shadows. Posts: Crap mostly
Posts: 7,999
Quote:
Originally posted by sgtfuzzbubble99
I fully support what the General has said so far. You can't expect to keep your freedom if you willfully choose not to have means of protecting it from those who might want to take it away.
Why must it be a gun though?

What is this bizzare idea that the only way to ensure freedom is to be armed with a firearm?


From what I've seen Firearms are a dummy to replace freedom, you have been weened away from the idea that freedom is an intrinsic part of human nature. Instead you seem to believe that a gun will magically protect you from your government if it turns bad.

Why then do you never use them when it dose?

Why do you keep trying to ensure you keep your guns when you allow polices to go thought that no other westernised nation would ever stand for?

Why do you assume that you would be effective against one of the worlds largest armies? You believe that everybody with a gun will rise at once do you?

Member most in need of SpellCheck Lifetime Achievement Award

I'm a Twitch Streamer these days, it's weird.
Vie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31st January 2008, 07:47   #44
General Geoff
Major Dude
 
General Geoff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Allentown, Pennsylvania
Posts: 1,254
Send a message via ICQ to General Geoff Send a message via AIM to General Geoff
Quote:
Instead you seem to believe that a gun will magically protect you from your government if it turns bad.
Well it won't magically protect you if you don't use it. The gun isn't freedom, it is what makes freedom possible. It gives the citizen a fighting chance against tyranny. Why a gun? Because the gun is the great equalizer. With it, the average citizen is on even ground with the professional soldier. Without it, the citizen is quite literally defenseless. With it, the citizen presents a viable threat to the "legitimate" authority, should said authority overstep its bounds. Sure you don't believe me, but one million soldiers vs one hundred million private gun owners, oh I think I know who'd win.

Quote:
Why then do you never use them when it dose?
Because most government leadership is smart enough to slowly and gradually disarm its population until it is effectively defenseless, and then proceed with genocide and/or purges, i.e. Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia. Its citizens were disarmed long before the Holocaust or the Great Purges occurred; thus the recipients of the slaughter had no way of defending against the soldiers when they came for them.


To condense the idea, think of it this way: Law only prevents evil until evil becomes the law. Then it is a tool of evil. A police officer is no more likely to be moral and good than the average private citizen. What makes them special to the point where they should be allowed guns and everyone else denied them? The answer: Nothing.

And the only way to fight a tyrant is with force. Without firearms, you have no force.


Quote:
From what I've seen Firearms are a dummy to replace freedom, you have been weened away from the idea that freedom is an intrinsic part of human nature.
Freedom IS an intrinsic part of human nature. But without force, one cannot defend his/her freedom from those who would take it from them with force. It's that simple.

General Geoff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31st January 2008, 10:21   #45
ScorLibran
Resident Floydian
 
ScorLibran's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 6,222
Four years was long enough.

I'm a psychosomatic sister running around without a leash.
ScorLibran is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31st January 2008, 10:52   #46
General Geoff
Major Dude
 
General Geoff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Allentown, Pennsylvania
Posts: 1,254
Send a message via ICQ to General Geoff Send a message via AIM to General Geoff
...?

General Geoff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31st January 2008, 14:12   #47
Mr_Nudge
Major Dude
 
Mr_Nudge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: melbourne, australia
Posts: 655
i'm so glad i don't live in the us.

Life's a game, break the rules
Click here
Mr_Nudge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31st January 2008, 14:30   #48
sgtfuzzbubble011
 
sgtfuzzbubble011's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 60,837
Quote:
Why must it be a gun though?
Why not? Why do you have this hatred for guns? You seem to like cars, though. A gun is no more lethal than a car when used properly. A car can be just a lethal as a gun, too. Why do you pick and choose like that? Do you think that guns are more dangerous than other types of weapons? You can be just as dead from a stab wound as you can be from a bullet hole. The General is quite right. Firearms give the average law-abiding citizens more power to defend themselves against threats of all kinds.
sgtfuzzbubble011 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31st January 2008, 16:03   #49
MidnightViper88
Made In The USA
(Forum King)
 
MidnightViper88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: The 502
Posts: 9,100
Send a message via AIM to MidnightViper88 Send a message via Yahoo to MidnightViper88
Things like this make me wonder; If we were living in more primitive ages before we could manufacture gunpowder, would we still be having a discussion over the right to bear bows and arrows? If it's the advantage a firearm has in that it can carry a lethal amount of force over an extended distance, what difference would a crossbow have with an AR-15, other than the amount of force the projectile would carry? They both can kill over an extended distance...

What's the substantive hubbub over the possession of firearms? I could defend myself from an opposing force through a survival knife but not with my trusty .45 auto? If I'm facing a criminal with a Tec 9, am I allowed to raise up in equal or superior firepower, or do I just say "SOL" and assume the fetal position? I'm hardly a trained professional in the field of combat, but common sense as a civilian where I want to protect my life in a given threatening situation tells me that I need more than my KA-BAR if the threat extends further than CQB range...Tactical response doesn't cover just one range of distance or one kind of weapon but over all sorts of ranges with different kinds of weapons...That sort of flexibility has to cover the type of enemy you face, be it a petty criminal with a micro Uzi, a terrorist with an AK-47, or even an invading national military or outside force...

...there also just happens to be a gun to fit every situation as well...Convenient, innit?

"I just want to lie in my own crusty filth, eating rancid egg sandwiches, until some unfortunate paramedic has to blow down my door to find my bloated and pasty corpse wedged between the nightstand and mattress stained with Bengay and Robitussin DM." - Greg Gutfeld on sex and seniors
"Syphilis does not stay in Vegas. Debt collectors do not stay in Vegas. Dead hookers stay in Vegas, but the guilt stays with you forever." - Bill Schultz
MidnightViper88 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31st January 2008, 16:35   #50
General Geoff
Major Dude
 
General Geoff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Allentown, Pennsylvania
Posts: 1,254
Send a message via ICQ to General Geoff Send a message via AIM to General Geoff
Quote:
Things like this make me wonder; If we were living in more primitive ages before we could manufacture gunpowder, would we still be having a discussion over the right to bear bows and arrows?
Before the advent of the firearm, there was this thing called the Dark Ages, where the strong ruled the weak. A longbow is effective at what it does, but only a person trained for years and physically young, healthy and strong can be an effective bowman. In contrast, anyone young, old, strong, weak, healthy, sickly, can effectively use a firearm with some rudimentary training. That is why it is the great equalizer. Without the firearm, society literally would collapse back into the Dark Ages.

General Geoff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31st January 2008, 18:01   #51
Vie
Forum King
 
Vie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Thoron fields and Duranium shadows. Posts: Crap mostly
Posts: 7,999
Two points: The Dark Ages only happened to Europe. At the same time the Islamic world was at its peak of scientific and cultural development, with technology and knowledge that would not be found in Europe until the age of enlightenment.
And at the same time the native American population was also at a cultural high, not as advanced technologically, but a lot more ecologically sound.

Point Two: Japan and the UK are not in Dark Ages, in fact despite the fact that firearms are illegal (Except if one has a reason to own one in the UK).

Member most in need of SpellCheck Lifetime Achievement Award

I'm a Twitch Streamer these days, it's weird.
Vie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31st January 2008, 18:35   #52
General Geoff
Major Dude
 
General Geoff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Allentown, Pennsylvania
Posts: 1,254
Send a message via ICQ to General Geoff Send a message via AIM to General Geoff
Quote:
Point Two: Japan and the UK are not in Dark Ages, in fact despite the fact that firearms are illegal (Except if one has a reason to own one in the UK).
The government has all the guns it wants. Also, you may not think it's a dark age, but give it time.

As for the argument that the rest of the world didn't have a Dark Age, that mainly has to do with culture. The Native American cultures are/were drastically different from European culture, and dare I say were close to utopian in nature (if you ignore all the inter-tribal wars). I only wish such a society could still exist as a majority today. And Japan, well, Japan was essentially in a Dark Age up until the early 1900s. They may not be now, but once again, its government has all the guns it wants.




edit; the bottom line is that if you think guns are evil, I probably can't convince you otherwise. All I can say is that I very truly pity you, both because of your flawed view and because of your inability to legally own firearms.


Last edited by General Geoff; 31st January 2008 at 18:50.
General Geoff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31st January 2008, 20:31   #53
Vie
Forum King
 
Vie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Thoron fields and Duranium shadows. Posts: Crap mostly
Posts: 7,999
You don't see the irony of what your saying, or are you just ignoring it?

Also, why put words in my mouth? I have never said that firearms are evil, there just a tool which can be put to many aims. My point is putting as many guns as possible out into the community at large is the single worse way imaginable to encourage freedom.

Arm everybody, and your free to be scared of your neighbours.
Arm the responsible, and the irresponsible are scared of them. Also who defines "Responsible"?
Arm nobody, and society works.

Guns do not equalise people, they oppress them based on who can afford what, or who decides who is responsible enough to own them.

Member most in need of SpellCheck Lifetime Achievement Award

I'm a Twitch Streamer these days, it's weird.
Vie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31st January 2008, 21:13   #54
ScorLibran
Resident Floydian
 
ScorLibran's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 6,222
Quote:
Originally posted by General Geoff
Before the advent of the firearm, there was this thing called the Dark Ages, where the strong ruled the weak. A longbow is effective at what it does, but only a person trained for years and physically young, healthy and strong can be an effective bowman. In contrast, anyone young, old, strong, weak, healthy, sickly, can effectively use a firearm with some rudimentary training. That is why it is the great equalizer. Without the firearm, society literally would collapse back into the Dark Ages.
I have many friends who ardently support the right to bear arms. They have very effective arguments that make me rethink my position every time. But please, for all that is holy, don't believe for a moment that guns have any place in an enlightened society.

Guns are fine for here and now. They fit right in to our current evolutionary standing. We're still tribal and religious and racially divided. The ability to "fuck you up" and "pop a cap" and "blow you away" is fun and impressive and meaningful in today's world, and it's very effective at getting kids interested and involved - they aspire to it en masse, and their father's aspire to teach them about it. I'm a movie fan, so I dig it too.

But I'm sure everyone realizes that valuing weapons has no place among any intellectually enlightened species, and for the sake of our advancement by learning, must only exist as a predictable, violent aberration in the development of our species. Over thousands of generations, guns will be referenced in this historical period with the same collective message for the kids: "...and look, we almost destroyed ourselves."

Humans MUST aspire to evolve to a higher plane of knowledge, to transcend arbitrary conflicts and learn how to be each other's benefactor rather than letting our egos define us and breed adversity. This is no foamy, liberal, pussy "peace on earth" rant, because I'm nothing close to passive in my desire to live for something better - to want to reasonably foresee a day when we don't have to live in continual fear of people who value the ability to deliver force with lower recoil and comfortable aftermarket grips against anyone they deem dangerous. The "gun" itself is incidental, and is not nearly as concerning as a person's desire to possess its abilities. Doesn't matter if it's a gun, bomb, knife or broomstick. "Look what I can do with it!" - that's the crux of the issue. I don't care how far a rifle can shoot accurately, or how smoothly it ejects a spent shell casing, . That lay people want - or even think they need - such abilities is the troubling evolutionary factor. And I'm not even concerned about it in regards to my own safety. I've never needed a gun to survive, I've never been shot at, I've never had to shoot an animal to eat, and I've never been attacked with a weapon. If I did have one, the odds are MUCH higher that the gun would result in my own legal problems rather than having any effect at all on my odds of survival. In fact, the probability that I would accidentally hurt someone, even myself, with a gun are significantly higher than the odds I'd ever be confronted with an actual need to shoot someone.

Guns don't kill people. People who have guns use them to kill people.

I want to defend my life with something much more effective than any gun: I call it being careful and living safely. It's making enough money to live in a relatively safe location, locking my doors, teaching my children how to be safe and paying careful attention to my surroundings at all times. This will be much more effective in protecting your family than owning any number of guns; it's guaranteed to never go off while you're cleaning it, you don't have to keep it locked in a cabinet and you won't be prosecuted if it falls into the hands of a child.

I'm not saying people who own guns don't have common sense, I'm saying people who own guns don't really need the guns because they have common sense. Common sense is a more effective defender than any gun in today's world. And no, you can't have both, because in an enlightened mind they are mutually exclusive.

The Dark Ages were not dark because of a lack of AK-47s and compatible ammunition. It was dark because disease, poverty, desperation, religious rule, persecution and brutal conflict were mainstay's of the time. Better weapons would not have solved any of these problems.
ScorLibran is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31st January 2008, 21:28   #55
General Geoff
Major Dude
 
General Geoff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Allentown, Pennsylvania
Posts: 1,254
Send a message via ICQ to General Geoff Send a message via AIM to General Geoff
Quote:
In fact, the probability that I would accidentally hurt someone, even myself, with a gun are significantly higher than the odds I'd ever be confronted with an actual need to shoot someone.
Where on earth do you get such flawed statistics? More people die from swimming pools than they do from accidental shootings. And despite what you think, you are far more likely to use a firearm in legitimate self defense than you are to accidentally shoot yourself or someone else.


Oh, and yes, that rant was a "foamy, liberal, pussy "peace on earth" rant". It is human nature to be violent; those who cannot suppress their baser instincts are doomed to act aggressively and violently. Sure it's great to aspire to a world where weapons are completely unnecessary. But like a world where Communism works, it will never happen.


Also, I dunno where all this "right to be without fear" crap comes from. There can be no such right, as fear is an emotion, not something tangible. Rights are things you're free to do, not things you are guaranteed to not be exposed to. Safety and security (and the perception thereof) is your own responsibility, no one else's.

General Geoff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31st January 2008, 21:35   #56
sgtfuzzbubble011
 
sgtfuzzbubble011's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 60,837
Quote:
I'm not saying people who own guns don't have common sense, I'm saying people who own guns don't really need the guns because they have common sense.
And that's exactly why responsible gun owners have guns. They know that there are too many people in this world that DON'T have common sense.
sgtfuzzbubble011 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31st January 2008, 21:44   #57
General Geoff
Major Dude
 
General Geoff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Allentown, Pennsylvania
Posts: 1,254
Send a message via ICQ to General Geoff Send a message via AIM to General Geoff
Oh, and here's some hard facts and studies to refute the misconception over accidental shootings. The statistic you probably originally read, counted suicides as accidental/violent gun deaths.

General Geoff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31st January 2008, 22:10   #58
ScorLibran
Resident Floydian
 
ScorLibran's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 6,222
Say "thank you" to evolution for the continual improvement of our species over time. Thank goodness some things don't work yet, as you say, because we're still a rough-dealing backwoods species early in our development. As such, violence indeed seems permanent and inevitable. I know - I'm with you on that.

And, in turn, it's OK to love guns and the means to bring violence to anyone during this brief, "birthing" period of our history. It's even the fad, and definitely fun to watch the discussions by folks "reinventing" the same old arguments and positions. Leave behind the glossy, rationalized scenarios - you know what's right and what's wrong, and you're able to imagine a positive future for humanity. Me simply knowing this last bit about you is all I need to feel content and secure - the rest of everything is just fluff.

Know that we have individual opportunities to transcend fads and learn as fast or as slowly as we choose. Revel in our strengths, not our weaknesses. Don't worry about the statistics of the masses, because WE EACH make OUR OWN decisions. Rising above is something you don't have to wait for, as you can do it every day.

But the world will not always be this way, my friend. So far we're hardly a "blip" on the radar of universal evolution. So naturally, none of this matters yet to anyone but our little selves. I'll be not morally troubled nor pridefully embarrassed about my species as long as we get things right by the time it does matter - for instance, by the time we are able to travel to the stars. Do you have any idea how embarrassing it would be to have discovered a means of interstellar travel and yet still be an essentially violent species? If that happens, I'm kicking the shit outta someone for not listening in class. Or I'm defecting from humanity. "I'm not with these dumbasses - I came alone."

But for the moment, all is about right in the world - we're reaping just about what we're sowing. And as a bonus, guns make for a GREAT movie industry don't they? Yeehaw!

My philosophy, in one sentence: "We can all have fun and be mean and stupid and raucous now because it doesn't matter, but later on people are going to be watching, so we'd better have all that crap out of our system!"

Quote:
Originally posted by sgtfuzzbubble99
And that's exactly why responsible gun owners have guns. They know that there are too many people in this world that DON'T have common sense.
I believe that, and I take solace from it. It's just the days in which we live.

I'm a psychosomatic sister running around without a leash.

Last edited by ScorLibran; 31st January 2008 at 22:35.
ScorLibran is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31st January 2008, 22:55   #59
fc*uk
Moderator
 
fc*uk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Atlantic Beach
Posts: 8,127
General, in all honestly, you make some very compelling arguments. You have clearly thought about your stance on the issue, and you have (excuse the phun) the ammo to back it up.

One thing that I am curious about (sorry for the digression from the current topic). You outright admitted that America has responsibility issues (hard not to). Do you feel that these people should have guns of any sort? Are these some of the people you would not trust with a gun? Your definition was you would trust anyone that would use the gun to defend themselves/someone else in an emergency, if I recall correctly.

Sarge kinda hit on this, I do realize that. But the question still remains, what about putting guns in those people's hands? I mean, anyone can get one, which seems to me to be the way you both want to keep it. But isn't that a little risky? I realize maybe not for the two of you, but you must think beyond yourself to the greater community as a whole. And you must remember the fact that America is one of the least educated first world countries...
fc*uk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1st February 2008, 01:25   #60
General Geoff
Major Dude
 
General Geoff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Allentown, Pennsylvania
Posts: 1,254
Send a message via ICQ to General Geoff Send a message via AIM to General Geoff
fc*uk, my stance that I don't trust people at all whom I don't trust with a gun stems from some real situations I've been in. Let me explain.

It is very, very difficult to stand idly by while someone nearby handles a gun with blatant disregard for the four rules (of firearms safety). Waving the gun around, sweeping everyone with the muzzle, finger on the trigger, these are all very, VERY unnerving things to a bystander. When I see such behaviour, I try my very hardest to remain calm and kindly (but very firmly) explain to the person about the four rules and why it is absolutely imperative that they handle the gun with the utmost respect and care, and to always assume that it's loaded. About 90% of the time, said person understands the depth and importance of my lecture, and they don't display such recklessness again. But the other 10%... well let's just say that if they don't get it after being lectured twice, I stop hanging out with them, and usually stop talking to them.

I don't want to be a victim of circumstance around the person, and I usually tell them if they call me, wondering why I've disappeared. I tell them that they act very dangerously and that if they want to continue being my friend, they need to seriously reconsider their behaviour. It's been my experience that these exact same people also have other behavioural quirks that result from blatant disregard to responsibility, such as recklessly driving, starting fist fights, blowing off appointments, things of that sort. So in a way, you could call the "I don't trust you with a gun" part a sort of responsibility indicator. If you are safe with a gun, that shows you are aware of the responsibility that the gun conveys upon you while you possess it, and thus you are, in the true definition of the term, a mature adult. If you are NOT safe with a gun (after repeated discussions about it), then frankly, you're not a mature adult and thus I can no longer treat you that way. And I don't like hanging out with people who are irresponsible and unsafe.


Now, these same people who just don't seem to "get it," I don't personally trust with a gun. That's not to say they will never be responsible with a gun (or their lives in general), just that I haven't been able to get through to them. It's still their right to own firearms, but it is their duty to fully understand responsibility. If they don't, yet persist in playing with "grown-ups' toys," then they may eventually end up causing an accident that could result in a serious or fatal injury to someone around them or themselves. Unfortunately that's the price one must pay for freedom. Freedom is not certified safe.


And for the record, if it were up to me, every adult not in prison would be able to walk into a gun shop and buy a gun. I definitely think that (in principle at least) convicted felons should be able to buy guns. Why? Because if they're back on the street due to parole or having served their sentence, then they should have ALL their rights restored, not just some. If a man (or woman) can't be trusted enough to allow them to buy/own a gun, then why are they trusted in society at all? They should still be in prison.




P.S. There are two terms that we in the gun culture tend to use when there's a discharge of a firearm that was not directly intended by the wielder. One is an Accidental Discharge (AD). The other is a Negligent Discharge (ND). The reasoning is that true ADs are, in reality, exceedingly rare. An AD can only be caused by a mechanical malfunction of the firearm, such as one or more mechanical safeties failing, the firing pin dropping unexpectedly, things of that sort. Such ADs are thusly, unavoidable occurrences that could not have been prevented by a more diligent operator. In nearly all cases, an AD does not result in any injury (because proper gun safety means that you never, ever point or aim a gun at anything you are not willing to destroy).

An ND is what we call it when the discharge is caused by the trigger being pulled by the wielder. There is NO excuse for this to happen, none. It happens (very rarely) even to some veteran gun owners. From what I've seen, most (responsible people) will never have one, and those who do only experience one once (and it's usually due to momentary lapse of judgment; we are only human, after all). Once again, a ND will rarely result in any injury or death, because as I stated before, one of the cardinal rules of gun safety is that you never, ever point a gun at anything you are not willing to destroy.


Last edited by General Geoff; 1st February 2008 at 01:45.
General Geoff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1st February 2008, 23:00   #61
ScorLibran
Resident Floydian
 
ScorLibran's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 6,222
Indeed, but also look beyond the greater community to the most basic functions of incentive stimuli that govern its actions. People are going to behave according to their times - according to how they think they should or need to behave. All evolutionary periods are marked by their own ups and downs, but in this time we are living through a uniquely "dirty" era. We have developed abilities as a race MUCH more quickly in the past several millenia than in any other period in history. A small drop in the bucket of time in which, assuming survival, our species will evolve.

We're in a minor evolutionary cusp right now. There are no imminent major extinctions, but old formulas of survival and prosperity are beginning to fail our species in recent times, and we're going to have to adapt to new ones in order to survive. This is why I will live as safely as possible during my lifetime as I described before, and teach everyone around me to do the same.

While aspiring to reach some level of enlightenment and better our species, general ownership of guns is holding us back - a hard stone dragging us down, tempered by centuries of precident and popularity, but weakened by recurring re-rationalizations. The fact is we no longer reasonably need to own a gun to provide our food or ensure our safety - in fact, we're about a century past such a need.

Therefore, the enlightened decision would seem clear, but the aforementioned precident and popularity work to counter it. This is exactly what we must survive with all hope that tomorrow our race will be wiser than today.
ScorLibran is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd February 2008, 02:14   #62
General Geoff
Major Dude
 
General Geoff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Allentown, Pennsylvania
Posts: 1,254
Send a message via ICQ to General Geoff Send a message via AIM to General Geoff
I disagree. Guns are tools, very highly refined tools. There is absolute need for them, and there will be so long as humans exist.

What you describe is a collective society, that of automatons, that of a "hive mind." People are individuals before they are a society, and as long as that is the case, guns will be a necessity. Let me ask you this. Would you volunteer to jump onto a grenade that's about to go off in a room with a dozen people in it? How about, would you be ok with being FORCED to do it? With no say, just a majority vote on what's best for the majority?

When you say "reasonably," you are probably inferring that individuals do not need guns because of a vast, relatively uniform, and pervasive police force in developed countries. Well, in case you didn't notice, at least in the U.S., the police have NO legal obligation to protect you. It has been ruled by the higher courts time and again that police officers and the police force in general have zero obligation to protect you as an individual; they merely have an obligation to protect society as a whole.

Well, until you're ok with being killed/mugged/raped just so long as you're a statistical anomaly, guns will be a necessary safety tool that must be available to the people.




edit; If you've ever watched Star Trek (mainly TNG), which is a show that's based on the premise of a near-utopian human society which no longer needs money, has no poverty, little disease, and has an overall completely peaceful and prosperous world society, you'll notice that they STILL HAVE WEAPONS. They're used very rarely and almost never to kill (only to stun; I love phasers), but they are still a necessity; similar to fire extinguishers.

General Geoff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd February 2008, 02:52   #63
mattorama
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1
Banning weapons to stop crime is like banning cough syrup to stop colds. Legally owned guns PREVENT crime.

If you actually want to stop crime, ban what actually causes it. I propose a ban on the actual cause of crime. Minorities. Any ones that are currently around can stay, but no more.
mattorama is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd February 2008, 02:54   #64
fc*uk
Moderator
 
fc*uk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Atlantic Beach
Posts: 8,127
General ...

Like I said, your arguments are indeed highly persuasive.

However, I feel you may be a little too idealistic, unless I am reading the replies wrong.

Quick summary: you don't trust the average idiot with a gun. However, you find it acceptable for those people to be able to easily obtain one (or at least as easily as you could --- and you are clearly not the "average idiot"). In all honestly, I trust someone like you with a gun to use it responsibly; however, that is not where my problem lies.

Additionally, you say someone released from prison should have all rights restored. What if they were a serial killer that used sniper riffles or what ever sort of gun you desire? On the same side of the coin, say someone is a repeated convicted felon of child molestation, serves their time, and gets out. Do you honestly think it is wise to set said person up as a school counselor, teacher, or any other profession where the potential molestation of another child is highly likely with no strings attached?
fc*uk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd February 2008, 03:00   #65
General Geoff
Major Dude
 
General Geoff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Allentown, Pennsylvania
Posts: 1,254
Send a message via ICQ to General Geoff Send a message via AIM to General Geoff
Any serial killer who has exhausted his appeals should be killed. It's that simple.

Child molesters, well, if it has been deemed that they are rehabilitated, said former molester would probably find it prudent to avoid professions where they may be tempted to resume their previous habit, similar to how recovering alcoholics tend to avoid bars. If they molest again, well, then they're clearly not rehabilitated and should thus still be incarcerated. I like a "three strikes, you're out" rule for things of that sort. Rapists and other highly criminal molestation charges should be a "one strike, you're out" deal.

Unfortunately the legal system in America needs a huge revamping, because it doesn't take much to be a felon nowadays, yet it's exceedingly difficult to keep someone in prison for their full sentence.

General Geoff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd February 2008, 03:46   #66
ScorLibran
Resident Floydian
 
ScorLibran's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 6,222
1. Two hundred years ago, an armed citizenry inarguably prevented significantly more crime than it incited. Today, gun control advocates hold that the inverse is true, and everyone else at least acknowledges that today it is arguable - if in no other way, by arguing about it!

2. In no way will any path to enlightenment for our species include common ownership of machines each of whose only practical fate in a home is to be held by the hand of a determined and frightened person (and far too often one not in a stable, mature emotional state) and used either to terrify another person, or to launch a small, heavy, precisely aimed piece of metal at a supersonic speed with the goal of piercing anything which incites the interest or wrath of the holder.

I'm a psychosomatic sister running around without a leash.
ScorLibran is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd February 2008, 04:16   #67
General Geoff
Major Dude
 
General Geoff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Allentown, Pennsylvania
Posts: 1,254
Send a message via ICQ to General Geoff Send a message via AIM to General Geoff
You just basically said in so many words, "guns can't be part of a better society because their sole purpose is to inflict injury."

Well, sometimes injury needs to be inflicted.


If you think of society as an organism, well, sometimes tumors and cysts must be removed forcefully, when they threaten healthy tissue around them. Hence, personal firearms. And that's completely ignoring individual responsibility. If you value society as a whole, you should consider it your DUTY as a productive member thereof, to value your productive life higher than that of scum which may do you harm.

General Geoff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd February 2008, 05:49   #68
Phyltre
Forum King
 
Phyltre's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Freefall
Posts: 2,751
Send a message via AIM to Phyltre Send a message via Yahoo to Phyltre
Scorlibran, I guess it comes down to what exactly you call "enlightenment" and your sense of betterment. My idea is that of greater personal freedom and self-determinism, not that of a commune.

You can take away the guns but at the end of the day, the elements within us that necessitate their use still remain. These elements are not tied to intelligence or upbringing; the amoral and the injurious rise from all demographics. The poor have violent gangs, the rich have conspiracies--grander thefts, and wars.

Your talks about enlightenment and bettering mankind are wholly meaningless. Neither you nor I can control anyone despite ourselves--and in a century, neither of us are likely to be alive. Feel free to base your personal decisions upon your idealistic scryings of the future, but don't expect us to swallow that pill--don't ask us to disarm when nobody else is required to protect us.

You say that a firearm is no longer required for self protection. Are you claiming that there is a police office in my living room? That a break-in comes with a half-hour announcement bell to allow me time to summon the authorities? That a few postings around the property full of your musings might weaken the minds of criminals against their endeavors, bringing them to your "enlightenment?"

I applaud you for living in an environment where your safety is, for the moment, virtually assured. But apparently I must remind you that the vast majority of mankind does not live in such a place. Isn't it a little ridiculous to extrapolate that because you see no personal need for a firearm in your life or the lives of those around you and your community, you therefore become willing to eliminate them? Does that even seem rational to you? Will you call the people in poor neighborhoods, without the money to even move out of flood zones, and tell them how unenlightened they are? Will you console them over the phone for the hour it'll take for the police to arrive at the scene, explain to them that by definition only criminals and police now have guns, and recommend a good mortician?

Murder is already illegal. If making something illegal (and highly punishable) isn't enough to discourage it, then society has already failed; taking away instruments of crime do nothing to address the underlying problems. Someone who would use a weapon to steal or kill will not undergo a change of personality if guns are banned, they will still be in your society. They will still be evil. Have we made that illegal yet?
Phyltre is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd February 2008, 07:37   #69
Omega X
Forum King
 
Omega X's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: A Parallel Dimension
Posts: 2,252
Send a message via AIM to Omega X Send a message via Yahoo to Omega X
Quote:
Originally posted by fc*uk


We fucking sue pharma companies because their medicine kills people when we are the ones not following the instructions in the first place. Remember McDonald's coffee? Someone burns themself and sues because the coffee was hot (please remember this has happened numerous times now). Yeah, no fucking shit, its a hot drink.

You are asking people here to own an assault riffle and be responsible with it? Parents can't even raise their children properly, and they are the first to blame "those damn gangs". Well, maybe if they actually cared and took a presence in their child's life. But nnnnnooooooooo .... it is not them.

.... back on topic, we can't even responsibly handle a hot beverage and you want people to handle a deadly weapon? No way.
A lot of that is both factual and negligence. Which means I agree and disagree. Some products that pharma companies sell are deadly products even when used correctly and are banned not long after its discovered. And pretty sure that McDonalds coffee is now temperature controlled to avoid burning now. As for the Parents comment, I don't have a counter argument for that one. Only that there are still some good parents left, But they are heavily outnumbered.

People handle deadly weapons responsibly every day. Penalizing the responsible because you saw news about some kid shoot himself or his sibling with his dad's handgun doesn't mean you ban guns outright. You make sure gun owners are well educated about handling and care in most situations. Hell there are a lot more people killed by bad pharma products and car accidents than guns.
Omega X is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd February 2008, 20:58   #70
ScorLibran
Resident Floydian
 
ScorLibran's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 6,222
Quote:
Originally posted by Phyltre
Scorlibran, I guess it comes down to what exactly you call "enlightenment" and your sense of betterment. My idea is that of greater personal freedom and self-determinism, not that of a commune.

You can take away the guns but at the end of the day, the elements within us that necessitate their use still remain.
No possible element within us necessitates their use. Relative to the history book of evolution a million years from now, we are unevolved, naturally detructive fuckapes who at least have the ability to adapt, and taking our guns away will only be remembered as a good thing. Also, no one is going to "take guns away" to solve any problem. What I'm counting on is that people will become more intelligent, AND NOT WANT GUNS ANY MORE.

"Enlightenment? My enlightenment is to have my gun. Durrrrr!"

If you don't understand the concept of enlightenment, then you will, unfortunately, NOT be invited to the post-enlightenment party. Go buy yourself a gun, so that the old era may pass more quickly.



How to explain enlightenment in the simplest context... We evolve every day, those of us who survive become smarter and vice versa, and over time anything that learns achieves enlightenment - the wisdom to embrace reason rather than tradition in seeking the betterment of your condition. (And look, it even rhymes!)

Gun control is not a restriction of any reasonable personal pursuits. You can't play with bombs either. Waaah! "We use them for excavation of our property, and for celebration, and it's our national right to have them!

There is no reasonable argument that guns are intended for anything but destruction, and it cannot be denied that any article of destruction can and will have no place in a society much wiser than our own.

Ironically, much of this topic is irrelevant to us here today. We have guns in our world now. That's not going to change in the near future. The collective wisdom of our species will likely not achieve any measurable leaps in the near future. So, in other words, as long as us humans alive to day are....um..."not blessed with any 'lightenment we can see", we will naturally deem it OK to have guns. When we, as a species, learn how to not piss into the wind over outmoded precidents and truly unnecessary "personal rights", then we'll make measurable advancements.

And the likening of gun-control to communism is usually just kids on uncertain ground playing with semantics and stereotypes they pick up from their parents. It doesn't work, silly kids! I say the mass population having the ability to shoot each other with guns is not wise, and you cry "communism"?

Here is exactly what that is:

Parent: "Don't hit each other."
Kids: "Fascist!"


Sometimes I wish/hope there is a God - someone who would keep us little tykes in line when we find some new way to hurt each other. Well, whatever God can't do, evolution surely will. So stay in school, everybody! And listen to your parents. And I will too, and maybe we can keep our species alive!

Very interesting, what y'all have to say. I'll be back later...
ScorLibran is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3rd February 2008, 00:16   #71
General Geoff
Major Dude
 
General Geoff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Allentown, Pennsylvania
Posts: 1,254
Send a message via ICQ to General Geoff Send a message via AIM to General Geoff
I think you just completely blew off my last post. Did you even read it?


What you say makes absolutely no sense, because it's based on a false premise that tools of violence are unnecessary and unneeded. No matter how enlightened we as a species become, there will ALWAYS be those who wish to do us harm. And therefore the right to keep and bear arms will never be obsolete, nor will it be rendered unneeded, unreasonable, or any other political weasel word that means "GUNS ARE BAAAAD."

Please, indulge me for a moment. What is your definition of reasonable?



edit;
Quote:
I say the mass population having the ability to shoot each other with guns is not wise
I can point out right here that your logic is flawed. The mass population already has the ability to kill each other through the use of bare hands, knives, baseball bats, sledgehammers, screwdrivers, automobiles, and pretty much any other inanimate object you can think of. The key here is that ability does not equal intent or inclination. Frankly, I think people should have as much ability as possible, including that of incapacitating or, if need be, killing, those around him, should the need arise. That's the point of freedom. To have the ability to do stuff. Discretion is a virtue beyond reproach, and a necessary trait to be free.

General Geoff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3rd February 2008, 02:07   #72
zootm
Forum King
 
zootm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: the nether reaches of bonnie scotland
Posts: 13,375
Quote:
Originally posted by General Geoff
No matter how enlightened we as a species become, there will ALWAYS be those who wish to do us harm. And therefore the right to keep and bear arms will never be obsolete...
If you're going to whine about people basing things on false premises, please don't make unjustified leaps of logic like this.

I'm not getting into this argument but that's pretty ridiculous. Regardless of one's views on gun ownership.

zootm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3rd February 2008, 06:07   #73
Phyltre
Forum King
 
Phyltre's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Freefall
Posts: 2,751
Send a message via AIM to Phyltre Send a message via Yahoo to Phyltre
Quote:
Originally posted by ScorLibran
Relative to the history book of evolution a million years from now, we are unevolved, naturally detructive fuckapes who at least have the ability to adapt, and taking our guns away will only be remembered as a good thing.
Who sent you into the future and commissioned you to write history books a million years hence? Basically all of your arguments are predicated upon the idea that smart people don't want guns. For instance, where you say "What I'm counting on is that people will become more intelligent, AND NOT WANT GUNS ANY MORE." But where is your proof or substantiation of the idea that a smart person would not want a gun if given the choice? How many voluntary disarmings have we had?

If chronic learning equals enlightenment for you, as you seem to suggest, then any human being capable of logical thought is enlightened because that is the nature of logical thought--using past experience to extrapolate the consequences of an action, then weighing the benefits and potential pitfalls in a risk/payoff analysis. Again, though, enlightenment for you seems to be tailored to your specific viewpoint--namely, that guns are bad. The only logic I can find concerning this is either circular or posited as truth, just like the opening I quoted.

Why do you believe:

"No possible element within us necessitates [gun] use."

"Gun control is not a restriction of any reasonable personal pursuits."

"There is no reasonable argument that guns are intended for anything but destruction."

"It cannot be denied that any article of destruction can and will have no place in a society much wiser than our own."

You never seem to back these statement up, although clearly these are the core statements we seem to be disagreeing over. I think it'd further the discussion if you could explain these statements. And lastly, you said

"I say the mass population having the ability to shoot each other with guns is not wise, and you cry 'communism'?"

Although I haven't called you a communist, I think you're more right than wrong about the thrust of my statements. I do not believe that the rights of many (whether it is the democratic majority or the Party of the State) should be able to trample upon the rights of a few. I do not believe that we should limit the rights of law-abiding citizens simply to make it harder for criminals to do things that are already illegal.

It almost seems as though you think of the average person as a potential criminal, who would surely commit crime if only it were easier. So you attempt to make crimes harder to commit.
Phyltre is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3rd February 2008, 15:18   #74
General Geoff
Major Dude
 
General Geoff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Allentown, Pennsylvania
Posts: 1,254
Send a message via ICQ to General Geoff Send a message via AIM to General Geoff
Quote:
Originally posted by zootm
If you're going to whine about people basing things on false premises, please don't make unjustified leaps of logic like this.

I'm not getting into this argument but that's pretty ridiculous. Regardless of one's views on gun ownership.
Where is this unjustified leap in logic? As I mentioned many, many posts ago, it is human nature to be violent. Since obviously this tendency must be overcome in order for a truly peaceful society to exist, that means every single human being on the planet would have to be highly intelligent, highly rational, lack any major chemical imbalances, and be raised in a fashion as to facilitate the abhorrence of violence for the sake of violence, not to mention that the greater good always trumps personal good.


That will never, ever happen. And if it does, as I stated (once again, many posts ago), it would be a society of automatons. Not something I wish for.

General Geoff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3rd February 2008, 18:22   #75
zootm
Forum King
 
zootm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: the nether reaches of bonnie scotland
Posts: 13,375
Quote:
Originally posted by General Geoff
Where is this unjustified leap in logic?
You took the assertion that there will always be those who wish to harm (fair enough) and then said "therefore" the right to keep/bear arms always makes sense. That sort of logic is taking your opinion on gun rights as an assumption, which means it's basically meaningless. If you hadn't said "therefore" and said something which implied that due to that, it's your opinion that people should have the right to keep and bear arms, fair enough. Treating it as simple logic is clearly fallacious; all you've really said is that you think that gun rights are valid now, and that if the world progresses in the way you predict you'll continue to think they're valid, rather than any sort of objective truth.

Your primary assertion is that the right to keep and bear arms is good because people are violent. I have no problem with you holding that opinion (maybe you're right - nobody really knows) but to treat it as fact and then use it to "prove" itself has no merit as an argument.

As I said, though, I'm not getting into this argument right now. I'm fed up with the same close-minded arguments coming from both sides of this debate.

zootm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3rd February 2008, 19:14   #76
General Geoff
Major Dude
 
General Geoff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Allentown, Pennsylvania
Posts: 1,254
Send a message via ICQ to General Geoff Send a message via AIM to General Geoff
It is fact, regardless of your opinion.

If some guy breaks into your house at night and you say "please stop," and he listens, apologizes, turns around, and walks away, then I'm wrong. But if he continues and injures/kills you anyway, ignoring what you say, well then that man has just proven that the right to keep and bear arms is necessary.

I don't see how that's not fact; which is why I'm continuously dumbfounded by the lack of logic employed by the so-called arguments against guns and other arms.


This was all well-known, undisputed fact two hundred years ago. I don't see how time has changed it. There hasn't been some new scientific discovery that suddenly renders arms to be useless.

General Geoff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3rd February 2008, 23:34   #77
zootm
Forum King
 
zootm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: the nether reaches of bonnie scotland
Posts: 13,375
Quote:
Originally posted by General Geoff
It is fact, regardless of your opinion.
It is opinion, regardless of your opinion that your opinion is fact.

Quote:
Originally posted by General Geoff
If some guy breaks into your house at night and you say "please stop," and he listens, apologizes, turns around, and walks away, then I'm wrong. But if he continues and injures/kills you anyway, ignoring what you say, well then that man has just proven that the right to keep and bear arms is necessary.
You actually think this is a good argument? If someone breaks into your house at night, you pull a weapon, and one of you ends up dead, as opposed to you just staying quiet and letting the dude rob the place, well then you've just proven that the right to keep and bear arms is dangerous and harmful.

Oh wait, sorry, that example is just as silly as yours.

Quote:
Originally posted by General Geoff
This was all well-known, undisputed fact two hundred years ago. I don't see how time has changed it. There hasn't been some new scientific discovery that suddenly renders arms to be useless.
This is a genuinely ridiculous argument. I'm glad I chose to stay out of this, and I've no idea why on earth I've spent time writing any responses to you at all.

zootm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th February 2008, 01:03   #78
xzxzzx
Forum King
 
xzxzzx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 7,254
Hmm. I think perhaps you two are misunderstanding each other.

As I understand it, zootm is saying that you are "begging the question", that is, you're assuming that your conclusion is true to make your argument.

However, General Geoff was responding to ScorLibran, who concedes that guns are necessary now because we are not an "enlightened" species -- but asserts that they will not always be necessary, as we will eventually become enlightened, and thus will have no use for guns.

General Geoff finds the idea of every human actually becoming peaceful/enlightened/whatever statistically implausible, and thus, if we need guns now, we will always need guns.

I hope I've facilitated some understanding, and not just misinterpreted what you guys were saying.

Freedom of speech is the basic freedom of humanity. When you've lost that, you've lost everything.
1\/\/4y 34|<$p4y 1gp4y 33714y, 0d4y 0uy4y? | Roses are #FF0000; Violets are #0000FF; chown -R ${YOU} ~/base
The DMCA. It really is that bad. : Count for your life.
xzxzzx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th February 2008, 01:22   #79
General Geoff
Major Dude
 
General Geoff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Allentown, Pennsylvania
Posts: 1,254
Send a message via ICQ to General Geoff Send a message via AIM to General Geoff
Quote:
Originally posted by zootm
It is opinion, regardless of your opinion that your opinion is fact
As long as you consider the earth being round as opinion too.


Quote:
You actually think this is a good argument? If someone breaks into your house at night, you pull a weapon, and one of you ends up dead, as opposed to you just staying quiet and letting the dude rob the place, well then you've just proven that the right to keep and bear arms is dangerous and harmful.
So long as the right person is dead, I don't consider it to be dangerous at all. And "harmful" depends on your definition of harm. If you'd rather take pity and sympathy on someone who breaks into homes for any reason, well then I am truly dumbfounded. Oh wait, your profile says you're from the UK, where they've pretty much outlawed anything that even *looks* like a gun, and they prosecute people for defending themselves against criminals.


Yeah, you shouldn't have bothered typing up a response, because all I see in them is "Big Brother is right, Big Brother will take care of us, Guns are Dangerous, help me, I'm scared.."




xzxzzx, I appreciate your attempt for clarification. ScorLibran at least recognizes that guns are needed in a society that harbors random acts of violence. zootm can't even wrap his mind around that, as he's stuck on the "guns kill people!" stage.

General Geoff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th February 2008, 05:00   #80
swingdjted
DRINK BEER NOW
(Forum King)
 
swingdjted's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Northern West Virginia
Posts: 9,990
Send a message via AIM to swingdjted Send a message via Yahoo to swingdjted
My guns are used to kill deer, pheasants, Turkeys, and rabbits. Yes, in this case, I kill with my guns. I don't mind. I also use other dangerous tools in my garden to grow and eventually kill heads of lettuce, carrots, and potatoes. Perhaps I'll be less evil and more enlightened if I stop doing this and let someone else do it with other, more sophisticated tools of death. Sorry about the sarcasm, I couldn't resist.

Guns would also be handy in a last-resort measure taken if someone breaks into my home and threatens the life of someone in it. Let's face it. Where I live, in the middle of an ocean of grass, the nearest law enforcement officer is literally dozens of miles away (and even more kilometers away). Even the nearest neighbor is also several miles away. If it weren't for the known assumption that pretty much everyone that lives in our situation has plenty of guns, we'd be far too easy of a target.

I will probably never need my guns to defend myself, but I will probably never need my smoke detector to tell me there's a fire either. I still have plenty of both.

Call it selfish, harmful, or even violent when I say this, but I feel that when I'm faced with the choice to protect the life of myself or someone in my home vs. someone threatening said life, I choose the former. If I feel I can disable without killing, I'll try it, even if I know that I'll be sued and punished for it. If killing seems inevitable, I will kill in self defense.

As far as a defense for tyranny... that's kind of silly if you ask me. I once made a post in a related thread of the past comparing my hunting guns teamed up with my fishing boat to a battleship and giant attached cannons... Maybe the crop duster dude down the street can fight the aa guns and drop a works bomb on it and dogfight with an air force jet... I don't care if the odds are 1000 to 1. The military is far too strong to surrender to civilian weapons. The time has come, starting a long time ago, where nothing a civilian has can compare to the military-only gear.

I guess one could argue that in this kind of tyranny, the military could disobey orders to fight civilians and join them instead, but it's hard to tell.

@zootm,

You're 'staying out' of this, but you're still posting every once in a while. I can easily tell that there are things in your mind that would benefit this thread, and please don't think you're above posting here. Saying "closed minded" to people that are open enough to discuss this when you seem to want to stay out of it is nearly hypocritical. I didn't really want to insult you with that, just wanted to let you know how someone can take it. Besides, I'm interested to hear your input anyway - not to troll against it, but just to feed a curiosity.

What are some things that would help make the arguments on either side more open minded? It's blatantly obvious that most people come to threads like these knowing they'll never change sides, and I regret to say that on this issue, I'm one of them, but it still helps me to understand and respect the other side, even if I don't want to switch to it.

Don't forget to live before you die.
swingdjted is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply
Go Back   Winamp & Shoutcast Forums > Community Center > General Discussions

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump