http://thehistoricpresent.wordpress.com ... hip-today/ (http://thehistoricpresent.wordpress.com/2013/05/08/no-the-american-revolution-is-not-a-model-for-gun-ownership-today/)
Amazing how real historians just blow the shit out of populist and propagandists..
The utter bullshit we hear today about gun ownership and our tyrannical government is, well...bullshit.
Unlike most people here, I grew up in an environment where hunting was a needed skill. Deer hunting was an annual event, and fishing and hunting for grouse and rabbits was part of our lives. There are still places, like Alaska, where that is a necessity. But most places food is store bought and farm raised. I believe it is this reason that the focus has changed to the concept of defending against an errant government.
The "guns" the colonists had were largely for hunting. There were undoubtedly some hand me downs from the previous French and Indian war, and a fair share of muskets. Rifles of that day, firearms with rifled barrels, were relatively slow to load and fire compared to a musket, which was a mass fire weapon and far less accurate. I believe the French supplied most of the firearms used in direct military conflict.
The right to keep and bear arms had more to do with having self defense against Indians and providing food. Where colonists were stripped of weapons, which in some cases they were, the obvious loss of food gathering and home defense was the big motivator. Warfare on a mass scale was never the intent of the colonists, who wanted only to be self governed and left to their own devices.
I have come across this many times in my life. I contend that no one needs a gun or should actually have a gun. I face opposition from gun people that say emphatically that the 2nd Amendment guarantees that they can own a gun. They go so far as to say that it dictates that every American MUST have a gun.
The 2nd doesn't do any such thing. In fact the 2nd is written in such a way as to say that a well regulated militia may be armed, because the Constitution does not and never provided for a standing Army.
Also the rightwing nuts think that the second is written in a way that the people shall be armed in order to overthrow the government. It is a delusional idea that has nothing to do with the Constitution at all. What they have done in this instance is confuse and pervert the reasoning given in the Declaration of Independence and the 2nd Amendment.
The DoI is a declaration for separation from the British rule and the explanation for doing so. Tyranny is just one reason. The 2nd nor any part of the Constitution gives any justification for overthrowing the government or even separation from the government, nor does it justify gun ownership for said purpose.
I say furthermore that there is no reason or justification to own or have a gun, and "because I want one" isn't good enough. The only reason constitutionally to have a gun is that the constitution doesn't specifically prohibit gun ownership. That is the only legal standing for gun ownership. The NRA and the righties actually know this, and know that any law that prohibits guns is and WILL be constitutional as it would specifically prohibit guns ownership and therefor be legal under the constitution. That is why they fight it and any gun legislation.
The arguments FOR gun ownership have all been shot down by every study that has ever addressed this issue.
Hunting-unnecessary and more costly than just buying food.
Protection-a nonstarter as it has been proven that having a gun is more likely to get the owner shot that if they didn't have one in the first place.
To overthrow the government-unconstitutional by every measure of the law and ineffective.
Because I want one-selfish, childish, and wholly irresponsible.
I served in combat. I am an expert with firearms. I don't need a gun in my civilian life. It doesn't make you a man. It only makes you dangerous to yourself and others. It doesn't prevent crimes, and shooting someone doesn't solve anything. In fact if you are ever unlucky enough to have to or just shoot someone, you will regret it your whole life. I have and I do.
Guns and gun ownership is just the manifestation of fanciful thinking. It is pseudo-machoism to the max. People watch movies and think "Hey I want to be that guy, he's cool."
There are better, safer, more effective, and more logical ways to deal with things. Killing brings a finality and a destruction that just doesn't make sense.
The point of the article, and their right is the 2nd amendment makes no mention of crime rates nor of defending against OUR government much less most selfish motives gun ownership now represents in most cases. Very few people, in fact, I'd say less than .0001% have to rely on hunting to feed themselves. It's an absurd argument in todays world.
The point was that in the context of self defense it was to defend our nation against a foreign occupying army.
The 2nd has been perverted for selfish motives. (My opinion)
I live twenty miles from the nearest police station, which at 3 AM has one cop on duty covering how many miles? I had a prowler out on the property last week, and was happy that a loud voice was all it took ... this time.
I want a shotgun, because when shit happens, I don't want it to rain on me.
I should have the right to defend myself and my property if the government cannot or will not do so. And truth be told, I'll defend myself anyway and take my chances in court. 'Tis better to ask forgiveness than permission, etc etc.
The question is, will that shotgun actually make you safer, or will it just make you feel safer? Are you actually defending your property and yourself, or are you only fooling yourself?
These are real questions, and I have not seen a single study that convincingly makes the case that a gun really makes you safer. Quite the opposite. (//http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/160/10/929.full)
Quote from: "mykcob4".
Also the rightwing nuts think that the second is written in a way that the people shall be armed in order to overthrow the government.
Question for you, is it possible in your opinion, for a person to own a gun and not be a rightwing nut?
My dad used to be a hunter, when he was young him and my granddad would go hunting in the mountains every weekend. Their family was poor, very poor, and the meat brought in form the hunting was very much needed. Added to that was an even poorer family down the street who would take the venison and other parts for food. They used every single piece, even the stuff you don't think about eating.
In that situation, hunting was needed and without the guns it would have let at least two families starve. It's not the case for everyone anymore, but as mentioned above; there are some families who still rely on hunting to bring home the food.
Nowadays my dad only has his shotgun for home defense; I never thought it was necessary until a pair of guys broke into my house last year. they were about to lift the TV when they found themselves looking down the barrel of my dad's weapon. They both promptly shit their pants and sat quietly in the corner until the cops got there. For which I am grateful.
I am of the opinion that yes, guns should be legal for people to own. But with limitations. You shouldn't be able to buy a 50 round drum for a semi-automatic weapon. There's no "hunting" involved in that. BS
And handguns. Handguns have one purpose, and its not hunting. A handgun is meant to close in on someone at close range and kill them.
You shouldn't be able to buy them.
That's my thing.
This is a delicate topic, as those of the far left will attack it, and those of the far right will defend it. And though I have right leading tendencies on some things, I do believe limitations are in order.
But no, banning guns outright is stupid and will only cause more conflict. In my own belief.
Quote from: "Johan"Quote from: "mykcob4".
Also the rightwing nuts think that the second is written in a way that the people shall be armed in order to overthrow the government.
Question for you, is it possible in your opinion, for a person to own a gun and not be a rightwing nut?
Of course there is, but when the 2nd amendment is taken completely out of context it destroys credibilty. It's kind of like someone making claims that smoking pot cures and prevents cancer. Gun ownership really makes nobody safer, but then if nobody owned guns clubs and knives would be the big danger and everyone would want them too...just in case.
People hunted quite successfully before guns were invented. Guns and hunting is convenient, but not manditory. Personally I think you ought to be made to prove you can bring a deer down bare handed before permitted to do it with a gun, but that's never happening. :-k
Quote from: "mykcob4"I have come across this many times in my life. I contend that no one needs a gun or should actually have a gun.
Would you extend that prohibition to the police? Why not?
Oh, and sorry about the PTSD that makes you hate guns. I sympathize, PTSD sucks.
.0001% in today's world is wrong, but we are talking about the U.S. People still need to hunt in some countries and some places in this country. But yeah, having a gun in the household is problematic and yeah, accidents happen.
Please note the following from Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_ ... by_country (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country)
After the U.S., you have Switzerland, Finland, Uruguay, Sweden, Norway, France, Canada and Iceland with high rates of gun ownership. The also have much lower crime rates by comparison.
The issue is much more complicated than statistical gun ownership. The type of guns, manner of carry, demographic mixture in a given area, a whole bunch of factors enter in. Switzerland has a very low gun crime rate. Switzerland also has a very low percentage of non-white, non-christian residents by comparison, and a very high level of education and standard of living. Likewise in Germany, Sweden and other countries.
Switzerland also had a standing reserve that up until recently required most adult citizens to participate in not only home defense but also national defense, and automatic weapons were issued to people in the reserves and kept in the home. Gun training was mandatory. In Israel, a standing reserve is also a big part of their national defense. Guess what? More people are still killed by drug overdose than guns or autos in the U.S..
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/danieldohe ... s-n1687973 (http://townhall.com/tipsheet/danieldoherty/2013/09/02/huff-po-more-people-die-from-drug-overdoses-than-from-guns-cars-n1687973)
Yet prescription drugs don't seem to be on anybody's radar for more regulation and oversight.
I'm with Thumpalumpacus. I own guns. I also have training and knowledge of their use. He does as well, he was in the military. But I know what is useful and what isn't, what works and what doesn't. Gun ownership must include gun responsibility and training in the proper use of it. A shotgun up close and personal is a defensive weapon. It is not an assault weapon and doesn't have sniping capability. Far more people, intentionally or otherwise, are killed by pistols than shotguns. And having an assault rifle makes no sense to me overall, because they are not designed as hunting weapons.
Wikipedia is notoriously inaccurate, not a reliable source.
http://www.livescience.com/32950-how-ac ... pedia.html (http://www.livescience.com/32950-how-accurate-is-wikipedia.html)
QuoteAnd last year, a study published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology found that Wikipedia had the same level of accuracy and depth in its articles about 10 types of cancer as the Physician Data Query, a professionally edited database maintained by the National Cancer Institute.
The self-described "free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" has fared similarly well in most other studies comparing its accuracy to conventional encyclopedias, including studies by The Guardian, PC Pro, Library Journal, the Canadian Library Association, and several peer-reviewed academic studies.
QuoteTo add to the debate, Life's Little Mysteries carried out its own, albeit small, test of Wikipedia's accuracy by consulting experts from two very different walks of life: theoretical physics and pop music.
Life's Little Mysteries asked Adam Riess, professor of astronomy and physics at Johns Hopkins University and one of the scientists credited with proposing the existence of dark energy , to rate Wikipedia's "dark energy" entry.
"It's remarkably accurate," Riess said. "Certainly better than 95 percent correct."
Overall, Wikipedia has been shown to be as accurate as other recognized sources.
Its uncentralized nature provokes people to ignorantly criticize its reliability whenever it is a source of facts that others dislike.
Don't you know, accuracy can only come from the top down?
Just read your bible. Everything you need to know is right in it. [-X
Quote from: "Jason_Harvestdancer"Its uncentralized nature provokes people to ignorantly criticize its reliability whenever it is a source of facts that others dislike.
Don't you know, accuracy can only come from the top down?
When it comes to using Wikipedia I tend to look at their citations and references as well. Overall I've found that articles, especially the more popular ones, have numerous citations from reputable sources.
Quote from: "AllPurposeAtheist"Just read your bible. Everything you need to know is right in it. [-X
What? Who are you talking to? I don't think Jason takes the bible as truth, I'm sure he's an Atheist....
Quote from: "frosty"Quote from: "AllPurposeAtheist"Just read your bible. Everything you need to know is right in it. [-X
What? Who are you talking to? I don't think Jason takes the bible as truth, I'm sure he's an Atheist....
In the immortal words of
Beauregard Claghorn,
it's a joke son. [-X
Quote from: "mykcob4"Hunting-unnecessary and more costly than just buying food.
This is where I say maybe because of how you are and how you know how to live, but that ain't me.
Last fall for less than 50 bucks I filled a medium sized freezer with deer meat. Why because it is healthy for you to eat it as it has zero cholesterol. Just because you can not do this go buy your meat, but it is an actual essential part of my life and diet. I also go pheasant and grouse hunting, not big on ducks. I do turkey hunt 2x a year again for he food it provides and I know that I am filling my freezer with food that
I processed not some meat locker. I also do other small game hunting and wish I could hunt more than I do year round as it does give me a supply of food cheaper than buying some cholesterol filled ground chuck from old retired milker cow from wal-mart. I also fish quite a bit for my food.
i guess you just don't get it and think because america allows people to own guns that they are all city dwellers that don't need them. You know what if you don't want to own a gun then fucking don't. But don't fucking say shit like this when you are obvious just regurgitating some propaganda. Fuck That! :evil:
PS: I buy my pork when the pig is alive and after I shoot the pig between the eyes I quickly cut the throat before it dies so it bleeds out leaving the pork very white. How do you buy your pork, from hormel? Maybe learn some actual life skill and then post crap like this.
Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"I live twenty miles from the nearest police station, which at 3 AM has one cop on duty covering how many miles? I had a prowler out on the property last week, and was happy that a loud voice was all it took ... this time.
I want a shotgun, because when shit happens, I don't want it to rain on me.
I should have the right to defend myself and my property if the government cannot or will not do so. And truth be told, I'll defend myself anyway and take my chances in court. 'Tis better to ask forgiveness than permission, etc etc.
Few years back I shot a grey wolf in my back yard by the chicken coop, then hung the tail next to it. For some reason it spooks them not to come back, not sure why it could be the smell. I also shoot the coyotes going out with a posse during early winter nights.
Quote from: "barbarian"Quote from: "mykcob4"Hunting-unnecessary and more costly than just buying food.
This is where I say maybe because of how you are and how you know how to live, but that ain't me.
Last fall for less than 50 bucks I filled a medium sized freezer with deer meat. Why because it is healthy for you to eat it as it has zero cholesterol. Just because you can not do this go buy your meat, but it is an actual essential part of my life and diet. I also go pheasant and grouse hunting, not big on ducks. I do turkey hunt 2x a year again for he food it provides and I know that I am filling my freezer with food that I processed not some meat locker. I also do other small game hunting and wish I could hunt more than I do year round as it does give me a supply of food cheaper than buying some cholesterol filled ground chuck from old retired milker cow from wal-mart. I also fish quite a bit for my food.
i guess you just don't get it and think because america allows people to own guns that they are all city dwellers that don't need them. You know what if you don't want to own a gun then fucking don't. But don't fucking say shit like this when you are obvious just regurgitating some propaganda. Fuck That! :evil:
PS: I buy my pork when the pig is alive and after I shoot the pig between the eyes I quickly cut the throat before it dies so it bleeds out leaving the pork very white. How do you buy your pork, from hormel? Maybe learn some actual life skill and then post crap like this.
Venison does not have zero cholesterol, just so you know. I don't have a problem with people in the sticks having long guns. I don't have a problem with subsistence hunting. I do have a problem with allowing any jerk off being able to walk into Walmart and being able to walk out with a gun. I do have a problem with people who carry pistols because they are chicken shit cowards, and having a gun makes them feel all warm and fuzzy. I do have a problem with 30 and 40 round magazines. I don't have any guns in my house, as I have 3 children. I'm not afraid of guns; I am a veteran, and well trained in their use. They are not needed by the vast majority of the civilian population, and if you think you need one for protection from your tyrannical government, you REALLY should have a good psych eval.
Quote from: "Jmpty"Quote from: "barbarian"Quote from: "mykcob4"Hunting-unnecessary and more costly than just buying food.
This is where I say maybe because of how you are and how you know how to live, but that ain't me.
Last fall for less than 50 bucks I filled a medium sized freezer with deer meat. Why because it is healthy for you to eat it as it has zero cholesterol. Just because you can not do this go buy your meat, but it is an actual essential part of my life and diet. I also go pheasant and grouse hunting, not big on ducks. I do turkey hunt 2x a year again for he food it provides and I know that I am filling my freezer with food that I processed not some meat locker. I also do other small game hunting and wish I could hunt more than I do year round as it does give me a supply of food cheaper than buying some cholesterol filled ground chuck from old retired milker cow from wal-mart. I also fish quite a bit for my food.
i guess you just don't get it and think because america allows people to own guns that they are all city dwellers that don't need them. You know what if you don't want to own a gun then fucking don't. But don't fucking say shit like this when you are obvious just regurgitating some propaganda. Fuck That! :evil:
PS: I buy my pork when the pig is alive and after I shoot the pig between the eyes I quickly cut the throat before it dies so it bleeds out leaving the pork very white. How do you buy your pork, from hormel? Maybe learn some actual life skill and then post crap like this.
Venison does not have zero cholesterol, just so you know. I don't have a problem with people in the sticks having long guns. I don't have a problem with subsistence hunting. I do have a problem with allowing any jerk off being able to walk into Walmart and being able to walk out with a gun. I do have a problem with people who carry pistols because they are chicken shit cowards, and having a gun makes them feel all warm and fuzzy. I do have a problem with 30 and 40 round magazines. I don't have any guns in my house, as I have 3 children. I'm not afraid of guns; I am a veteran, and well trained in their use. They are not needed by the vast majority of the civilian population, and if you think you need one for protection from your tyrannical government, you REALLY should have a good psych eval.
Venison still has low cholesterol , it is said that it is 1/3 less than beef but it is still the better choice for diet. I will give you that as a correction. I also prefer the taste of venison over beef.
If it makes you feel better not to have guns in your house because of your kids then keep doing what you are doing. There is still only a small population of that are using guns in all these shootings that you hear of. I think time spent creating laws on people killing and seriously hurting people with cars while using cell phones would be a better argument on having strict laws on this. As you said you have 3 kids that you strap in your car and more likely to be a victim a distracted driver than being a victim of gun violence. To make the argument of strict gun laws over kooks that they need them from a tyranny government you again just tapped in what is a small part of the population that uses them for many other things such as self protection and hunting. You want to disarm America over a very small population group sounds paranoid as people that want them for militia use of over throwing the government. Also, why do you want to take my pistol away also. That just sounds crazy to me also.
I guess I don't understand why people thump the drum over strict gun laws then stay mute on the subject of something that you actually have a greater risk of being a victim from.
Quote from: "AllPurposeAtheist"Just read your bible. Everything you need to know is right in it. [-X
God MADE guns! It's in there. You can't prove it isn't!
I'm with APA, It's so annoying especially in NJ where eveyone in this suburban yuppie area pretends to be a redneck. They don't hunt for their food. Most people haven't even seen a gun in person let alone held one even at a shooting range. The only person I know that owns one is my friend from highschool, but he is a policeman. But EVERYONE complains about how gun control is too strict.
I really like the PSA they did either last year or 2 years ago that makes a good point of why gun control is much different than the 17/1800s:
[youtube:2i5ivifw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LORVfnFtcH0[/youtube:2i5ivifw]
Quote from: "PickelledEggs"Quote from: "AllPurposeAtheist"Just read your bible. Everything you need to know is right in it. [-X
God MADE guns! It's in there. You can't prove it isn't!
I'm with APA, It's so annoying especially in NJ where eveyone in this suburban yuppie area pretends to be a redneck. They don't hunt for their food. Most people haven't even seen a gun in person let alone held one even at a shooting range. The only person I know that owns one is my friend from highschool, but he is a policeman. But EVERYONE complains about how gun control is too strict.
I really like the PSA they did either last year or 2 years ago that makes a good point of why gun control is much different than the 17/1800s:
[youtube:3t3t328h]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LORVfnFtcH0[/youtube:3t3t328h]
Not really sure what you are referring to but if you could post a link to the point that you are making from an actual website vs a youtube video it would be appreciated. I don't use youtube.
Quote from: "barbarian"Quote from: "PickelledEggs"Quote from: "AllPurposeAtheist"Just read your bible. Everything you need to know is right in it. [-X
God MADE guns! It's in there. You can't prove it isn't!
I'm with APA, It's so annoying especially in NJ where eveyone in this suburban yuppie area pretends to be a redneck. They don't hunt for their food. Most people haven't even seen a gun in person let alone held one even at a shooting range. The only person I know that owns one is my friend from highschool, but he is a policeman. But EVERYONE complains about how gun control is too strict.
I really like the PSA they did either last year or 2 years ago that makes a good point of why gun control is much different than the 17/1800s:
[youtube:f75ghjyb]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LORVfnFtcH0[/youtube:f75ghjyb]
Not really sure what you are referring to but if you could post a link to the point that you are making from an actual website vs a youtube video it would be appreciated. I don't use youtube.
Oh yeah. sorry about that. I'll just explain the clip to you if that's alright.
It was a public service TV ad a little while back where a guy walks in to an office. It implies that he is a depressed employee that either worked there or got fired or something... But you can see that he is very depressed just by looking at his face.
he walks in to the back of the office disregarding people asking him what he's doing with a flint-lock musket rifle and fires at what seems to be his boss. It misses and no one gets shot or hurt despite being only about 20' away because the rifles of the civil war were totally inaccurate. Everyone screams and runs out before he can even load more gunpowder and another musket ball in the rifle.
The point of the video was that everyone talks about how we need gun laws loosened up, but not many people understands that guns are extremely compact now and are also much more accurate and can hold many more rounds of ammo.
Quote from: "mykcob4"I have come across this many times in my life. I contend that no one needs a gun or should actually have a gun. I face opposition from gun people
I say furthermore that there is no reason or justification to own or have a gun, and "because I want one" isn't good enough.
The arguments FOR gun ownership have all been shot down by every study that has ever addressed this issue.
Hunting-unnecessary and more costly than just buying food.
Protection-a nonstarter as it has been proven that having a gun is more likely to get the owner shot that if they didn't have one in the first place.
Guns and gun ownership is just the manifestation of fanciful thinking. It is pseudo-machoism to the max. People watch movies and think "Hey I want to be that guy, he's cool."
What about those like my family who own a large 600 acre primary producing property, do you think we dont need a gun to take care of feral pest problems?
Thanks to the anti gun bigots the best gun i can have is a 6 shot 243 bolt action, i had a ruger 10/22 which was perfect for picking off smaller feral animals yet had to hand it in because semi autos are banned here.
What do you suggest people use to take care of problems like this, why do fuckwits like you want to take our best tools away?
//http://www.sportingshootermag.com.au/news/300-pigs-and-not-one-gun
Before we had strict gun laws imposed on us drive by shootings were unheard of in Australia, does the increase in drive by shootings from none to becoming common show the gun laws work, do you think the people doing these drive by shootings are licensed gun owners with registered weapons?
//https://www.google.com.au/#q=drive+by+shooting+sydney
Just look at all those people who surrender when a gun is pointed at them, if it is considered armed robbery even if a criminal does not fire their weapon then statistics of defensive gun use without firing a shot should also be considered and they are numerous.
My mother had 2 people surrender inside her tractor shed when she pointed a unloaded bolt action 22 at them so i dont buy your crap on guns not helping for protection, do you think people will surrender when they see a red dot from a laser pointer aimed at their balls?
The homicide rate in Australia is 0.86 per 100,000, in New Zealand which allows semi auto rifles and suppressors with fairly liberal gun laws the homicide rate is 0.9 per 100,000, there is no evidence strict gun laws reduce homicide rates.
Quote from: "PickelledEggs"Oh yeah. sorry about that. I'll just explain the clip to you if that's alright.
It was a public service TV ad a little while back where a guy walks in to an office. It implies that he is a depressed employee that either worked there or got fired or something... But you can see that he is very depressed just by looking at his face.
he walks in to the back of the office disregarding people asking him what he's doing with a flint-lock musket rifle and fires at what seems to be his boss. It misses and no one gets shot or hurt despite being only about 20' away because the rifles of the civil war were totally inaccurate. Everyone screams and runs out before he can even load more gunpowder and another musket ball in the rifle.
The point of the video was that everyone talks about how we need gun laws loosened up, but not many people understands that guns are extremely compact now and are also much more accurate and can hold many more rounds of ammo.
My main argument when it comes down to gun control is that I don't believe that they actual need to be tightened or loosened. I go fishing with this guy from the area I am from that owns a gun and is a gunsmith I also know a couple other gunsmiths in the area. Most people when they start up the conversation about gun control is that they start in with extreme view from either the left or right depending what they believe. If anyone wants to really address gun control in America I don't think that this is where they should start the debate. All of a sudden you start to see that over kill on real solutions. I just constantly hear regurgitated arguments that essentially go no where. When I have conversations out fishing with my friend he has some real common sense approaches to correct the actual problem that we face in today's world.
When you take the gun show loop hole for example, this is an area that is being exploited at serious levels and it could be easily addressed that you buy a gun at the expos then get a background check just as you would if you bought one from a reputable dealer and it wouldn't be that difficult to do. The thing is that there is usually always people there that could do the background checks fairly easy for the other people at no cost or very minimal. He goes to gun shows all the time and would never sell a gun to anyone without making sure that they have cleared a background check because those numbers on those guns will go directly back to him if the gun was used in a crime.
As far as private sales it is harder to curtail them types of purchases but I do not think that a law needs to change on that one either. See this isn't happening in a place like the gun show example where there is hundreds of gun sales taking place in one location. Not to mention the guys that are sitting there that have dozens of guns up for sale.
As far as banning assault riffle isn't really a solution either due to tat most of that all has to do with the cosmetic look of the gun. So by changing the shape of gun as far as appearance doesn't really accomplish much either. At the same time you start thinking do you really need a clip that holds 30 and sometimes more rounds than that in these guns. This should be looked at closer to some type of law to tighten this area, but again it needs to be common sense just because they are banned doesn't mean that the disturbed would not be able to still get them, making it harder for legitimate gun owners isn't the solution. There is so many large clips out there already they still would be pretty easy to obtain even if a law was enacted prohibiting them. I really can't say I have a good answer for this one.
I also hear when it comes to the gun control debate that there should be an exemption for law enforcement. Well, yeas and no. I don't mind to see say your police, sheriff, etc dept. to have and in that light maybe to a certain extent they can obtain some for there dept. yet they should be locked away unless they are an absolute in needing them not of every trunk if the squad cars. Also that the law enforcement officer himself may not own anything over and above what a common citizen can own. In other words, as of right now a cop can go buy himself a fully automated weapon for his personal collection. I don't think anyone needs that for their personal collection, that is totally over the top insanity. Again police department owning them I can see, the the the employee, ahhhh no. That would be like sending all our soldiers home with their m4 that is still functionable to being fully automated.
There is many things that could be done in enforcing laws already on the books also. Also carrying a pistol isn't always a bad thing and as common folk they should be able to strap there pistol on their side as they go out hunting or conceal one because they need to drive through bad areas of a city. These generally are not the people you need to worry about anyway. Again a common sense approach to figure out the disturbed from obtaining guns, well if you want to hear some reality of changing that I can shed some light on it at another time, but I will say there is some easy solutions to that without impeding on constitutional rights.
See this is where I my self can get bent out of shape on the debates going on, this how we want to define or redefine what exactly is the constitution saying about firearms. We should never go to extreme to fast when changing interpretation of the constitution and the rights within. As a pointed out earlier that over the top extreme views get thrown out from both sides so nothing gets done in an intellectual matter that makes sense and actually addresses problems. Also like as I stated in a previous post about distracted and drunk drivers in that you have a greater chance of being affected by them then you stand the chance of being affected by gun violence. What national debate is going on over that and that doesn't even have to do with your constitutional rights. It more has to do with people driven around in a something that is over a ton of metal and can have a real life changing impact on you. You don't see that in the news enough because they don't cover all the car accidents that happen everyday across the nation and it actually, in my opinion is the bigger issue.
I love it when people bring up cars as a defense of gun ownership. You need a license to drive a car, which you need to pass a test to obtain. The car itself needs a license, Which has to be renewed every year. You also need insurance to drive a car. Shouldn't gun ownership have to meet at least these standards?
I'm not anti gun, far from it, but living in cities most of my life every single day without fail the local news reports on murders occuring, usually multiple murders, many involving kids and innocent bystanders. If you think you HAVE to hunt to eat in the city you're clearly delusional.
The purpose of the article wasn't over whether you like deer meat or it's health benefits, it's about the batshit crazy notion that you're going to 'defend' your family from big, bad gubnit when clearly big bad gubnit isn't out rounding up people for execution and overthrow of our government is clearly illegal. The fact that every city has an armed police force and we have well armed, regulated military forces should tell any sane person the bullshit claims are just that, an excuse to sell weaponry where it's not needed and a clear threat to the public peace and well being and health.
Quote from: "Jason_Harvestdancer"Quote from: "mykcob4"I have come across this many times in my life. I contend that no one needs a gun or should actually have a gun.
Would you extend that prohibition to the police? Why not?
Oh, and sorry about the PTSD that makes you hate guns. I sympathize, PTSD sucks.
What PTSD doesn't make me hate guns. What a stupid thing to say. You do nothing but lob personal insults at me. I'm tired of your attitude and misinformation directed at me continually. You always try to spin something I said by adding a complete lie and then commenting on the lie that YOU made up. It's a FOX tactic and it's childish.
Quote from: "mykcob4"Quote from: "Jason_Harvestdancer"Quote from: "mykcob4"I have come across this many times in my life. I contend that no one needs a gun or should actually have a gun.
Would you extend that prohibition to the police? Why not?
Oh, and sorry about the PTSD that makes you hate guns. I sympathize, PTSD sucks.
What PTSD doesn't make me hate guns. What a stupid thing to say. You do nothing but lob personal insults at me. I'm tired of your attitude and misinformation directed at me continually. You always try to spin something I said by adding a complete lie and then commenting on the lie that YOU made up. It's a FOX tactic and it's childish.
I notice you didn't answer the question. Would you extend that prohibition to the police? If nobody needs guns, why not? Ignore the question and discuss a tangent, typical Fox news tactic.
Police qualify under 'well regulated militia' Jason. You're blowing smoke up asses. :roll:
Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"I live twenty miles from the nearest police station, which at 3 AM has one cop on duty covering how many miles? I had a prowler out on the property last week, and was happy that a loud voice was all it took ... this time.
I want a shotgun, because when shit happens, I don't want it to rain on me.
I should have the right to defend myself and my property if the government cannot or will not do so. And truth be told, I'll defend myself anyway and take my chances in court. 'Tis better to ask forgiveness than permission, etc etc.
A bazooka will work better. He! He! :lol: Solitary
Quote from: "Jason_Harvestdancer"I notice you didn't answer the question. Would you extend that prohibition to the police? If nobody needs guns, why not? Ignore the question and discuss a tangent, typical Fox news tactic.
There's actually a few countries that managed to get to the point where even the police no longer carry guns. Like the United Kingdom. It can be done.
Quote from: "barbarian"Quote from: "mykcob4"Hunting-unnecessary and more costly than just buying food.
This is where I say maybe because of how you are and how you know how to live, but that ain't me.
Last fall for less than 50 bucks I filled a medium sized freezer with deer meat. Why because it is healthy for you to eat it as it has zero cholesterol. Just because you can not do this go buy your meat, but it is an actual essential part of my life and diet. I also go pheasant and grouse hunting, not big on ducks. I do turkey hunt 2x a year again for he food it provides and I know that I am filling my freezer with food that I processed not some meat locker. I also do other small game hunting and wish I could hunt more than I do year round as it does give me a supply of food cheaper than buying some cholesterol filled ground chuck from old retired milker cow from wal-mart. I also fish quite a bit for my food.
i guess you just don't get it and think because america allows people to own guns that they are all city dwellers that don't need them. You know what if you don't want to own a gun then fucking don't. But don't fucking say shit like this when you are obvious just regurgitating some propaganda. Fuck That! :evil:
PS: I buy my pork when the pig is alive and after I shoot the pig between the eyes I quickly cut the throat before it dies so it bleeds out leaving the pork very white. How do you buy your pork, from hormel? Maybe learn some actual life skill and then post crap like this.
"Why because it is healthy for you to eat it as it has zero cholesterol" Really? [-X Solitary
Quote from: "AllPurposeAtheist"I'm not anti gun, far from it, but living in cities most of my life every single day without fail the local news reports on murders occuring, usually multiple murders, many involving kids and innocent bystanders. If you think you HAVE to hunt to eat in the city you're clearly delusional.
The purpose of the article wasn't over whether you like deer meat or it's health benefits, it's about the batshit crazy notion that you're going to 'defend' your family from big, bad gubnit when clearly big bad gubnit isn't out rounding up people for execution and overthrow of our government is clearly illegal. The fact that every city has an armed police force and we have well armed, regulated military forces should tell any sane person the bullshit claims are just that, an excuse to sell weaponry where it's not needed and a clear threat to the public peace and well being and health.
These is no no military personnel or police officers that suffer from PSTD, your right, good point. I didn't say that the law enforcement shouldn't have an arsenal. I said that they should be held by the department not over ride laws of the common folk so that a law enforcement personal can own them for their very own.
You don't hear of car accidents from dui and distracted drivers at the same level of what the media reports murders another good point which means they must not happen all that much. I must be out of touch with life because I know more people personally that die from alcohol and distracted driving related accidents than murdered or shot.
I am not to sure that if we had just declared independence on another nation today that they wouldn't exclude gun ownership from a constitution even into today's world. I think it is funny how the musket gets brought up as what it was like at that time as if it would be equal power to any attacking force. Most people did at that time use guns no better than hunting rifles. Again, I just don't think that it would have held to reason to have written out gun ownership in the constitution.
This is why the conversation over gun rights gets bent and ignored, people want to hear real conversation of something that is comprehensive and not all in on one side or the other. I say if they can not speak of this issue in a true light of sanity that noting will really change, which is good. Because when it comes down to what the constitution says it should be a tough argument to have it changed. Bat shit crazy and big gubnit comments are hardly what I would call a conversation for change of a constitution written right. If your city is having big problems than they can address issues of what you are complaining about just as they did in large cities for decades, at a local level.
Quote from: "Solitary"Quote from: "barbarian"Quote from: "mykcob4"Hunting-unnecessary and more costly than just buying food.
This is where I say maybe because of how you are and how you know how to live, but that ain't me.
Last fall for less than 50 bucks I filled a medium sized freezer with deer meat. Why because it is healthy for you to eat it as it has zero cholesterol. Just because you can not do this go buy your meat, but it is an actual essential part of my life and diet. I also go pheasant and grouse hunting, not big on ducks. I do turkey hunt 2x a year again for he food it provides and I know that I am filling my freezer with food that I processed not some meat locker. I also do other small game hunting and wish I could hunt more than I do year round as it does give me a supply of food cheaper than buying some cholesterol filled ground chuck from old retired milker cow from wal-mart. I also fish quite a bit for my food.
i guess you just don't get it and think because america allows people to own guns that they are all city dwellers that don't need them. You know what if you don't want to own a gun then fucking don't. But don't fucking say shit like this when you are obvious just regurgitating some propaganda. Fuck That! :evil:
PS: I buy my pork when the pig is alive and after I shoot the pig between the eyes I quickly cut the throat before it dies so it bleeds out leaving the pork very white. How do you buy your pork, from hormel? Maybe learn some actual life skill and then post crap like this.
"Why because it is healthy for you to eat it as it has zero cholesterol" Really? [-X Solitary
Already been pounced on and corrected, sorry for your late response.
Quote from: "Jmpty"I love it when people bring up cars as a defense of gun ownership. You need a license to drive a car, which you need to pass a test to obtain. The car itself needs a license, Which has to be renewed every year. You also need insurance to drive a car. Shouldn't gun ownership have to meet at least these standards?
I do have insurance, both on my vehicles and my guns. You do need a license to carry that you need to pass a test to obtained and has to be renewed, already in my state. You do have to pass background checks to obtain firearms already. I also took a firearm safety coarse way back before I hunted, I also took a written permit test and a behind the wheel test before I could drive.I am not sure how much more I need to do to satisfy you to have a constitutional right. Driving is a privilege just as gun ownership but driving isn't something the constitution gave you the privileged to do, again it should be difficult to reinterpret the constitution and change what is within.
My point as far as cars is that I don't see people driving down the road swinging around a loaded gun, but I do see people being distracted every time I go into any populated area with cell phones in the hands while they are driving. I know people that leave bars drunk and drive home like something that is socially acceptable. The notion that insurance saves lives is weird to me also, not sure what standard you refer to when stating this.
Are we really safer with everyone having a hand gun and running amuck? Of course one is safer having a hand gun or weapon if they have time to get their gun, but how many times would one have time to even get even their concealed gun or weapon if a person just decides to shoot them? The police have guns handy, do they get shot and killed? How many shootings are by non-criminals until they shoot their gun? Are all the accidental shootings to be ignored? I have had a knife pulled on me twice in my life and survived to fight another day, and a gun put to my head once where I cowered into a fetal position hoping he didn't pull the trigger.
How many hunters here that find it easy to shoot an animal has ever faced a human with a gun. Believe me, it is a whole different matter. I have PTSD also, what in the hell does that have to do with thinking we don't like guns for that reason. And even if it is, we know what it's like to confront a human with a weapon or gun and kill another human with a gun and know what it's like, and not that easy as shooting a defenseless animal. I have a 45 caliber Para Ordinance loaded with blue tip glazers, but I hope I never ever have to actually use it and don't think I ever will where I live. If people don't think there is a problem with guns in the inner cities and it is out of hand they are delusional.
It's true that more gun laws don't solve the problem, but what is the answer? More and more guns and weapons easier to get with no restrictions at all so more people need protections from people with guns? This is insane. Solitary
Quote from: "Solitary"It's true that more gun laws don't solve the problem, but what is the answer? More and more guns and weapons easier to get with no restrictions at all so more people need protections from people with guns? This is insane. Solitary
This is actually the part of the gun control debate that gets muted and over ridden because the conversations always end up tilted so far to either side both sides stop...
Barbarian, you and I are well aware that buying guns is about as easy as buying bread. It's not as if guns are so benign that children should be taking them to school or should have quick and easy access to them. I don't have a big problem with gun ownership, but it shouldn't be easier than getting a fishing license. Buying guns ought be a process that at least takes some effort and have limitations, not some fucking free for all built on false assumtions of 'personal safety' and 'liberty' when we clearly have dedicated forces for those reasons. Should you be able to defend yourself? Absolutely, but since when did that include battlefield weaponry?
Quote from: Jason_HarvestdancerForget it Jason. You're just baiting for a fight because you want cause to ban me. It's a game you play. You put words in people's mouths to piss them off, then if they get angry about it you ban them.
So you won't tell me why the police aren't included in your gun ban?
And although I am a mod, I have given no indication of any intention to ban. Where did you get that idea?
Quote from: "Jason_Harvestdancer"So you won't tell me why the police aren't included in your gun ban?
And although I am a mod, I have given no indication of any intention to ban. Where did you get that idea?
PMs from other people that had to deal with you.
Quote from: "mykcob4"Quote from: "Jason_Harvestdancer"So you won't tell me why the police aren't included in your gun ban?
And although I am a mod, I have given no indication of any intention to ban. Where did you get that idea?
PMs from other people that had to deal with you.
I know who you're talking about. His ability to PM you raises questions about whether or not he was banned. It seems to me that people who are banned can't post and can't PM. You've been lied to, it seems, but the lies conform to your preset ideology so you won't ever question them. Blue Rools Red Drools!
And you still haven't told me why the police aren't included in your gun ban.
And no, APA, the police don't count as the "well regulated militia."
Oh, but a bunch of yokels with guns threatening to overthrow the government DOES count as a well regulated militia... Gotcha. :roll:
Actually law enforcement does not count as well regulated militia any more than the "bunch of yokels." A well regulated militia would look more like the National Guard which could call on citizens to help with what ever that state would be facing. People like to forget that the National Guard is suppose to be a state's militia and not part of the federal government's military. Along with that each state is actually considered its own country that we unite under one federated system. It would then be safe to say that a state could overthrow the federal government at a claim of Independence from. Likely hood of this happening are very slim. Also my state has its own constitution along with its own legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government.
Quote from: "AllPurposeAtheist"Oh, but a bunch of yokels with guns threatening to overthrow the government DOES count as a well regulated militia... Gotcha. :roll:
Yeah, that's exactly what I wrote, word for word, not even a misplaced comma.
Quote from: "stromboli"Overall, Wikipedia has been shown to be as accurate as other recognized sources.
Whatever mods are in charge their do a decent job nowadays of cleaning out the obvious crap. I remember once in high school, I looked up the Lakers on the site and it said the basketball team was founded by two homosexuals ready to have buttsex.
No joke. But I haven't seen anything like that recently and you are supposed to reference what you put there at the bottom.
You're also supposed to click the "recent history" button to see how long it's been since an article was changed, and from what. That'll usually be enough to figure out whether it's trustworthy or not.
Quote from: "Jason_Harvestdancer"Its uncentralized nature provokes people to ignorantly criticize its reliability whenever it is a source of facts that others dislike.
Don't you know, accuracy can only come from the top down?
Since Wikipedia can be corrupted by anyone and is a majority consensus based format the information is notoriously inaccurate and unreliable. It's like playing the game "whispers" but with over a million people.
Quote from: "stromboli"http://www.livescience.com/32950-how-accurate-is-wikipedia.html
QuoteAnd last year, a study published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology found that Wikipedia had the same level of accuracy and depth in its articles about 10 types of cancer as the Physician Data Query, a professionally edited database maintained by the National Cancer Institute.
The self-described "free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" has fared similarly well in most other studies comparing its accuracy to conventional encyclopedias, including studies by The Guardian, PC Pro, Library Journal, the Canadian Library Association, and several peer-reviewed academic studies.
QuoteTo add to the debate, Life's Little Mysteries carried out its own, albeit small, test of Wikipedia's accuracy by consulting experts from two very different walks of life: theoretical physics and pop music.
Life's Little Mysteries asked Adam Riess, professor of astronomy and physics at Johns Hopkins University and one of the scientists credited with proposing the existence of dark energy , to rate Wikipedia's "dark energy" entry.
"It's remarkably accurate," Riess said. "Certainly better than 95 percent correct."
Overall, Wikipedia has been shown to be as accurate as other recognized sources.
Quote from: "mykcob4"Quote from: "Jason_Harvestdancer"Its uncentralized nature provokes people to ignorantly criticize its reliability whenever it is a source of facts that others dislike.
Don't you know, accuracy can only come from the top down?
Since Wikipedia can be corrupted by anyone and is a majority consensus based format the information is notoriously inaccurate and unreliable. It's like playing the game "whispers" but with over a million people.
Check the facts. Wikipedia is trustworthy. See above post. And stop being an idiot and refusing to check the facts for 5 seconds, please.
Just going to throw on my opinion on Wikipedia; it's legit, it is only "proven to be inaccurate" like radiocarbon dating has been "proven to be inaccurate".
Quote from: "Solitary"It's true that more gun laws don't solve the problem, but what is the answer?
I think we need to start with the right questions. What are the reasons for increased homicide rates, where are they occurring and who are responsible? As you say, more gun laws won't solve the problem. Probably because guns aren't the problem.
Quote from: "Solitary"More and more guns and weapons easier to get with no restrictions at all so more people need protections from people with guns? This is insane. Solitary
Do people need protection from people simply because they have guns? People need to protect themselves from people who want to do them harm, with or without a gun.
QuotePeople need to protect themselves from people who want to do them harm, with or without a gun.
Societies need to protect themselves from people who want to do them harm. If you're making this a personal responsibility of every person, you'll never get anywhere.
Quote from: "Plu"Quote from: "mykcob4"Quote from: "Jason_Harvestdancer"Its uncentralized nature provokes people to ignorantly criticize its reliability whenever it is a source of facts that others dislike.
Don't you know, accuracy can only come from the top down?
Since Wikipedia can be corrupted by anyone and is a majority consensus based format the information is notoriously inaccurate and unreliable. It's like playing the game "whispers" but with over a million people.
Check the facts. Wikipedia is trustworthy. See above post. And stop being an idiot and refusing to check the facts for 5 seconds, please.
Thanks for the personal insult. It certainly describes your worthiness of being a moderator.
fact is that Wikipedia is inherently not trustworthy as a valid source any more than say the bible. A consensus of multiple posters is not a valid display of facts. hers what Harvard has to say about it.
http://isites.harvard.edu/icb/icb.do?ke ... page346376 (http://isites.harvard.edu/icb/icb.do?keyword=k70847&pageid=icb.page346376)
What's Wrong with Wikipedia?
< PREVIOUS | NEXT >
There's nothing more convenient than Wikipedia if you're looking for some quick information, and when the stakes are low (you need a piece of information to settle a bet with your roommate, or you want to get a basic sense of what something means before starting more in-depth research), you may get what you need from Wikipedia. In fact, some instructors may advise their students to read entries for scientific concepts on Wikipedia as a way to begin understanding those concepts.
Nevertheless, when you're doing academic research, you should be extremely cautious about using Wikipedia.
As its own disclaimer states, information on Wikipedia is contributed by anyone who wants to post material, and the expertise of the posters is not taken into consideration. Users may be reading information that is outdated or that has been posted by someone who is not an expert in the field or by someone who wishes to provide misinformation. (Case in point: Four years ago, an Expos student who was writing a paper about the limitations of Wikipedia posted a fictional entry for himself, stating that he was the mayor of a small town in China. Four years later, if you type in his name, or if you do a subject search on Wikipedia for mayors of towns in China, you will still find this fictional entry.) Some information on Wikipedia may well be accurate, but because experts do not review the site's entries, there is a considerable risk in relying on this source for your essays.
The fact that Wikipedia is not a reliable source for academic research doesn't mean that it's wrong to use basic reference materials when you're trying to familiarize yourself with a topic. In fact, the library is stocked with introductory materials, and the Harvard librarians can point you to specialized encyclopedias in different fields. These sources can be particularly useful when you need background information or context for a topic you're writing about.
You seem to be confusing whether Wikipedia can be quoted as a source and whether the information you read on Wikipedia is correct. The former, no (because the information can change between when you source it and when the verifier reads it). The latter, yes (because the information has been researched to be as trustworthy as what you find in an encyclopedia)
Thus, if you read something on wikipedia it's as correct as if you read something in an encyclopedia (and you need to apply the same level of fact verification as when you read it in an encyclopedia), you just can't use wikipedia as a professional source because its contents can change.
Also, fuck you. I'm the only person in the moderation team who'se trying to be impartial when it comes to dealing with you, but you're making it really difficult.
Quote from: "Plu"You seem to be confusing whether Wikipedia can be quoted as a source and whether the information you read on Wikipedia is correct. The former, no (because the information can change between when you source it and when the verifier reads it). The latter, yes (because the information has been researched to be as trustworthy as what you find in an encyclopedia)
Thus, if you read something on wikipedia it's as correct as if you read something in an encyclopedia (and you need to apply the same level of fact verification as when you read it in an encyclopedia), you just can't use wikipedia as a professional source because its contents can change.
Also, fuck you. I'm the only person in the moderation team who'se trying to be impartial when it comes to dealing with you, but you're making it really difficult.
If you have to research everything on Wiki to find out if it is true, then why bother? The mere fact that you have to do that tells you that it isn't trustworthy or else you could trust it in the first place. Also just checking the sources isn't any help. The sources for wiki are just as untrustworthy.
Oh and thank you again for the insult, it really must be hard to be civil and impartial when you're really not.
Interestingly, Wikipedia's regular users seem to form an "immune system" that protects Wikipedia from disinformation. Tests have been done wherein someone inserts some false information to see how long it stays up before it is removed. It never stays up very long.
Here's a good example of the Wikipedia immune system in action. (//http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Jason_Gastrich&oldid=431106395)
Quote from: "Jason_Harvestdancer"Interestingly, Wikipedia's regular users seem to form an "immune system" that protects Wikipedia from disinformation. Tests have been done wherein someone inserts some false information to see how long it stays up before it is removed. It never stays up very long.
Here's a good example of the Wikipedia immune system in action. (//http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Jason_Gastrich&oldid=431106395)
That's why a guy posted on Wiki that he was a mayor of a Chinese city and it lasted for 4 years. hmmm...guess you're right.
So we have more guns than people and dogs in this county because Wikipedia is usually righ, but not always? There just has to be a connection. :-k
here is my take on wikipedia, if you, and that is you yourself are looking up quick information on something it may get you off into the right direction. That in itself isn't a bad thing it is just when you start to argue a point of something that you the person that is trying to make the point should go further in making sure that your information that you are providing is as accurate as possible. I have heard arguments over wikipedia in this sense.
Quote1stBS) I gave you the information and posted the source (wikippedia link exists)
2ndBS) Then you have someone else saying that what you have posted from that site is skewed and you should have followed up with other sources.
1stBS) Well the sources are right at the bottom for you if you wanted to check them you are just to lazy.
2ndBS) No you are just to lazy to double check the source you provided by either their own sources or possibly 1 or 2 different sources altogether.
So, now you have 1stBS accusing another 2ndBS of being lazy about something that may be true but skewed information. Why is it 2ndBS's responsibilities to make sure that wikipedia's sources aren't slanted. It isn't generally because the issue comes up in a debate situation.
If you really want your point to stick go ahead and use wikipedia but it is not the 2BS's responsibility to debunk whether or not wikipedia is being skewed or slanted or even incomplete on a subject.
Personally, myself if someone uses wikipedia for a source I do not click on the link or continue to to go back in forth with someone that obviously only took the time to read a condensed overlook at whatever may be that they are trying to rely. That is just me. why? I just see wikipedia as a parrot in the room that doesn't have a comprehensive overview on the subject and if I was really that interested in a condensed version I could just read wikipedia myself without the assistance of anyone pointing me to that as some type of an information source.
Secondly, is that the past few times I did go to wikipedia I get some church style collection basket window that hangs down half my screen preaching to me why I should give them money. If the site is that good then flat out charge people to use it like many other sites. I know that I paid for information in the past on physic sites so that I could get good comprehensive information, I also paid for comprehensive books on subjects, especially going to college years ago. I used to have a set of encyclopedias that I would get a book every year (had to pay for it) to keep updated on current information.
It is up to you if you want to use wikipedia as your source not mine I won't tell you not to but I do laugh to myself when people peddle that site like a "god' source of information though, just my opinion. Then again i never have had a facebook, tweeter, google+, or other social media account, nor do I use youtube or cell phones and I still use an antenna for my TV channels, and hunt for my food so what the hell do I know. :ANAL:
Or..as in my case usually, I get tired of arguing bullshit that's not worth the time nor effort to spend hours researching more bullshit to backup the bullshit and don't feel like wasting bullshit time to type bullshit. #-o
Quote from: "Plu"QuotePeople need to protect themselves from people who want to do them harm, with or without a gun.
Societies need to protect themselves from people who want to do them harm. If you're making this a personal responsibility of every person, you'll never get anywhere.
Not what I meat. I was stressing that we need to focus on the people causing harm, and not the weapons, if we want results. Look at what else I posted.
But let's look at what you're saying now that we're here.
QuoteSocieties need to protect themselves from people who want to do them harm.
Sounds nice, but what exactly are you talking about? Encouraging an environment where people live peacefully and cooperatively, minimizing violence? Or are you going for a society with a strong government and police force who regulate and control the actions of the people? Maybe some of both? OK, great, but can you eliminate all acts of violence by doing so? You can attempt to create an environment that minimizes violence, and you might do a pretty good job of it, but you can never eliminate it.
QuoteIf you're making this a personal responsibility of every person, you'll never get anywhere.
If you're not ultimately responsible for your own safety, who is? Forget guns for the moment and consider what you're saying. You can't hold "society" or anyone else responsible for your personal safety, that falls on you. Unless you have a 24 hour personal body guard, or a cop in your pocket, there is no one else you can hold responsible but yourself. Your decisions and your actions have the greatest bearing on your personal safety. Staying out of bad situations is most often accomplished by your decisions, but when that's not possible, you're the only one who can immediately react. There is no society force shield that's going to protect you, you're the one who's going to have to run, hide, or fight back. Who else can you hold responsible but yourself?
QuoteIf you have to research everything on Wiki to find out if it is true, then why bother? The mere fact that you have to do that tells you that it isn't trustworthy or else you could trust it in the first place.
There isn't a source in the world you should trust without attempting to verify its correctness.
You show me a person who argues that a point isn't valid simply because wikipedia was used as a source and I'll show you a person who doesn't have much of a counter argument.
Quote from: "Johan"You show me a person who argues that a point isn't valid simply because wikipedia was used as a source and I'll show you a person who doesn't have much of a counter argument.
You are absolutely right about it, just because wikipedia was used as a source that there may be still be a valid point. I see it as a condensed source of information, if you like using it nothing wrong with that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God)
I see this entry as skewed and incomplete and not very comprehensive, much like the old encyclopedias I had sitting on the book shelf.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence_of_God (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence_of_God)
I can find more people in the area that I live in that would stand on the issue of this definition as flat out wrong. On this definition issue if you take not at the sources used it is quite comprehensive but only for the person that takes the time to check all the validity of them and that once again if the sources used was skewed or slanted.
the bible has all the answers you need... bible thumpers
wikipedia has all the answers you need... wikipedia thumpers
"wikipedia" is "god" #-o
Either way going back to what APA said most good debates that end in wikipedia arguments are generally not worth going back and forth on any way. Much like gun control debates, which got derailed over wikipedia. :rollin:
Quote from: "Plu"QuoteIf you have to research everything on Wiki to find out if it is true, then why bother? The mere fact that you have to do that tells you that it isn't trustworthy or else you could trust it in the first place.
There isn't a source in the world you should trust without attempting to verify its correctness.
But there are valid trustworthy sources, that by the very virtue of publishing you can count on as being well researched and valid. Wiki isn't anywhere near that credible.
QuoteEither way going back to what APA said most good debates that end in wikipedia arguments are generally not worth going back and forth on any way. Much like gun control debates, which got derailed over wikipedia
It did a bit more than derail. It crashed off the bridge and got hauled to a scrap yard and recycled into Wikipedia brand soup cans...or something like that. #-o
Yes, because modern USA culture has the exact needs and values as in the 1780s. yeah..so they need guns because there's no police, and you have to sometimes shoot slaves who run away, yeah they're your property, but in all property there's risk of loss.......
Call this judgmental, but then the scope for gun ownership bar recreation or police/armed forces work is very limited in modern society. People who own guns are largely insecure, or think a gun makes them a badman or something. A person who isn't a police officer, armed forces personnel or a gang leader/member who owns a gun isn't balanced IMHO....
Quote from: "darsenfeld"Yes, because modern USA culture has the exact needs and values as in the 1780s. yeah..so they need guns because there's no police, and you have to sometimes shoot slaves who run away, yeah they're your property, but in all property there's risk of loss.......
Call this judgmental, but then the scope for gun ownership bar recreation or police/armed forces work is very limited in modern society. People who own guns are largely insecure, or think a gun makes them a badman or something. A person who isn't a police officer, armed forces personnel or a gang leader/member who owns a gun isn't balanced IMHO....
So a law abiding hunter unbalanced to you?
And a gang leader/member is balanced?
Do you actually think before typing this level of stupid?
yes. Gang leaders/members are such based on their environment and lifestyle. as they live in a crime-oriented/violent scope, they NEED guns to live. Rationality is subjective. I personally deem hunting immoral, but I don't care about the hunter. I also don't think people need guns.
Quote from: "darsenfeld"yes. Gang leaders/members are such based on their environment and lifestyle. as they live in a crime-oriented/violent scope, they NEED guns to live. Rationality is subjective. I personally deem hunting immoral, but I don't care about the hunter. I also don't think people need guns.
(//http://global3.memecdn.com/the-stupid-is-strong_o_1629373.jpg)
A gang leader/member, who will use their gun to rape, kill, rob, and or maim(usually all of the above) is a stable person? On what fucking planet does that make any fucking sense? Do you not see the sheer amount of stupid that you are posting? And since you just LOVE to post stupid without bothering to look anything up, a neat little bit of info for you. Gangs existed prior to guns, they conducted their business without guns for the most part until the late 60's. GANGS DONT NEED GUNS, IT JUST MAKES KILLING EASIER.
Hunters, for the most part need guns. There are very few people that can pull a bow with a heavy enough draw to down a deer or other large game. And another neat little bit of info for you, there are less murders committed by people who hunt vs the gang members you claim to be balanced.
Honest question for you. Did you by chance take the short bus to school?
tell me a psychiatrist (even though it's a spent field as all know) who says a gang member is mentally ill? haha..
Gangs exist due to basic sociology. So yeah, a gang who kill and rob based on poverty, high crime rates, or simply greed are ill... right... dope lol..
I never mentioned gangs long ago, i don't care, but yeah, firearms aren't the weapons of choice in the modern world, swords and longbows are, right? either way, they live a violent lifestyle, based on crime, greed and sociological factors, duh... So yeah, based on their circumstances (inner city deprived areas of little hope, poverty, abuse, institutional racism, hmmm... yeah, gangs are irrational..)
Sorry, I have more sympathy for a gang man than a hunter, nobody needs to hunt in this day, probably does it because he's insecure and needs to prove to himself and others he's bad by shooting a deer... lol.
Quote from: "darsenfeld"tell me a psychiatrist (even though it's a spent field as all know) who says a gang member is mentally ill? haha..
Gangs exist due to basic sociology. So yeah, a gang who kill and rob based on poverty, high crime rates, or simply greed are ill... right... dope lol..
I never mentioned gangs long ago, i don't care, but yeah, firearms aren't the weapons of choice in the modern world, swords and longbows are, right? either way, they live a violent lifestyle, based on crime, greed and sociological factors, duh... So yeah, based on their circumstances (inner city deprived areas of little hope, poverty, abuse, institutional racism, hmmm... yeah, gangs are irrational..)
Sorry, I have more sympathy for a gang man than a hunter, nobody needs to hunt in this day, probably does it because he's insecure and needs to prove to himself and others he's bad by shooting a deer... lol.
Oh so because "guns are the weapon of choice" makes it ok for gangs to use them? Again do you see the stupidity you try to pass off as intelligent?
http://thestreetsdontloveyouback.ning.c ... -joining-1 (http://thestreetsdontloveyouback.ning.com/page/reasons-for-joining-1),
http://www.gangfree.org/gangs_why.html (http://www.gangfree.org/gangs_why.html),
http://www.sacsheriff.com/crime_prevent ... isk_01.cfm (http://www.sacsheriff.com/crime_prevention/documents/teens_at_risk_01.cfm).
Notice how NONE of those list money as the highest reason. Do you just post the first thing that pops into your empty little head and try to pass it off without an ounce of proof? In fact a simple web search shows you to be wrong more often than not. You claim to be from England, you do know that most gang murders are still by the knife right, the same for Ireland and several Pacific Island Nations. So again, tell me how bad gangs need guns.
And you do know that there are people who can't afford to go to the market and buy enough meat for their families(in the US) and that they use hunting to supplement their food budget. Also outside of several speciality stores it is quite difficult to get venison, duck, or any number of quite delicious meats. And as a hunter myself, I eat EVERYTHING I kill. You seem to know nothing about anything.
Again I have to ask
Did you take the short bus to school? While wearing a helmet by chance?
The UK (lulz.. learn proper sovereign-state labels if you claim to be intelligent) doesn't have a gun culture.
The fact is gangs exist for sociological reasons, it's a no brainer. and you didn't answer my question so I won't answer yours, it may annoy your socially needy arse, so what, not my issue. If gangs exist it's for good reason, and if they kill or injure it's also for good reason.
Quote from: "darsenfeld"The UK (lulz.. learn proper sovereign-state labels if you claim to be intelligent) doesn't have a gun culture.
The fact is gangs exist for sociological reasons, it's a no brainer. and you didn't answer my question so I won't answer yours, it may annoy your socially needy arse, so what, not my issue. If gangs exist it's for good reason, and if they kill or injure it's also for good reason.
Ok Here you go:
http://www.bbc.com/news/health-23275139 (http://www.bbc.com/news/health-23275139)
Sooooo yea Id say they are more likely to be mentally ill. Care to try again
er.. your hyperlink says that it's a byproduct of being in gangs, not entering or having membership in gangs per se. People are different and human motivations are different. People in criminal activity fall within the normal mental health spectrum, which is based on scientific conclusions not what "society" may deem fit or "lacking empathy". And yeah, if they're ill by chance of experiencing violence, er.. it figures. So WWII vets who suffered from PTSD were weird, well yeah, seeing Nazi soldiers turn your comrades into shreds with machine guns won't have an effect on people...
besides, I contend given the lifestyle, SOME weapon is required since it's inherently violence-based. No matter, you don't clearly get the human condition, not my problem...
Quote from: "darsenfeld"er.. your hyperlink says that it's a byproduct of being in gangs, not entering or having membership in gangs per se. People are different and human motivations are different. People in criminal activity fall within the normal mental health spectrum, which is based on scientific conclusions not what "society" may deem fit or "lacking empathy". And yeah, if they're ill by chance of experiencing violence, er.. it figures. So WWII vets who suffered from PTSD were weird, well yeah, seeing Nazi soldiers turn your comrades into shreds with machine guns won't have an effect on people...
besides, I contend given the lifestyle, SOME weapon is required since it's inherently violence-based. No matter, you don't clearly get the human condition, not my problem...
Wow so according to the first line you disagree with the link, then you proceed to agree with what the article said. So, uh, which one is it brainiac?
As to a weapon being needed, I believe this entire thing started on the subject of GUNS being needed(according to your opinion) not other weapons. Something that by the way Ive disproven.
And as most people aren't born into a gang, its something that is joined later in life, they are most likely(according to the studies) to have been subjected to a fair amount of gang related violence prior to even joining a gang.
QuoteIf gangs exist it's for good reason, and if they kill or injure it's also for good reason.
Gangs kill for a good reason? What pray tell do you think a "good reason" for gangs to kill each other?
By the way, most gangs(in the US) tend to kill for drug turf disputes, revenge for killing a member(who most likely was a revenge for another murder), or because of "disrespect". Soooo tell me where is the "good reason" in that?
And as for me "not understanding the human condition". LOFUCKINGL. I have been to most countries in the world(both in the military and as a professional fighter). I have seen the human condition in quite a few places, I have seen humans at their best, I have seen them at their worst. Besides making up bullshit and trying to sound intelligent, what experience with this "human condition" do you have?
Quote from: "darsenfeld"Yes, because modern USA culture has the exact needs and values as in the 1780s. yeah..so they need guns because there's no police, and you have to sometimes shoot slaves who run away, yeah they're your property, but in all property there's risk of loss.......
Call this judgmental, but then the scope for gun ownership bar recreation or police/armed forces work is very limited in modern society. People who own guns are largely insecure, or think a gun makes them a badman or something. A person who isn't a police officer, armed forces personnel or a gang leader/member who owns a gun isn't balanced IMHO....
What other parts of the Bill of Rights should we ignore on the basis that it was written in the 1780s?
Quote from: "darsenfeld"Yes, because modern USA culture has the exact needs and values as in the 1780s. yeah..so they need guns because there's no police, and you have to sometimes shoot slaves who run away, yeah they're your property, but in all property there's risk of loss.......
Call this judgmental, but then the scope for gun ownership bar recreation or police/armed forces work is very limited in modern society. People who own guns are largely insecure, or think a gun makes them a badman or something. A person who isn't a police officer, armed forces personnel or a gang leader/member who owns a gun isn't balanced IMHO....
Lobbing ad hominem attacks against millions of people because they own something you don't like them owning....nice job, you seem like a total prick.
er.. it's just an opinion lol..
Quote from: "darsenfeld"er.. it's just an opinion lol..
An uninformed one.
ok, but then all opinions are of equal value...
Quote from: "Jason_Harvestdancer"Quote from: "darsenfeld"Yes, because modern USA culture has the exact needs and values as in the 1780s. yeah..so they need guns because there's no police, and you have to sometimes shoot slaves who run away, yeah they're your property, but in all property there's risk of loss.......
Call this judgmental, but then the scope for gun ownership bar recreation or police/armed forces work is very limited in modern society. People who own guns are largely insecure, or think a gun makes them a badman or something. A person who isn't a police officer, armed forces personnel or a gang leader/member who owns a gun isn't balanced IMHO....
What other parts of the Bill of Rights should we ignore on the basis that it was written in the 1780s?
hmm...so you think laws can never be updated to suit?
i don't really care, I'm not an American. But then, I agree with all of them as they stand and have stood. and?
Quote from: "darsenfeld"ok, but then all opinions are of equal value...
Bullshit, absolute fucking bullshit. Are you saying that if I had racist opinions that it would be as valid as someone who had non racist opinions? It is what you form from the facts that makes a good opinion. An opinion is only as valid as the evidence it is based on.
When you characterize an entire group of people and justify as "meh, it's an opinion dude" that doesn't fly. When you say that people who own guns aren't balanced you are demonizing an entire group of people just to suit your political ideas. To say that gun owners as a group are imbalanced is to deny the facts. Most gun owners aren't going out and killing people and committing crimes. Yes it's more likely that someone who owns a gun will commit homicide and/or suicide, but you didn't say that. You said gun owners are largely insecure and imbalanced, and that's bullshit.
Quote from: "The Skeletal Atheist"Quote from: "darsenfeld"ok, but then all opinions are of equal value...
Bullshit, absolute fucking bullshit. Are you saying that if I had racist opinions that it would be as valid as someone who had non racist opinions? It is what you form from the facts that makes a good opinion. An opinion is only as valid as the evidence it is based on.
When you characterize an entire group of people and justify as "meh, it's an opinion dude" that doesn't fly. When you say that people who own guns aren't balanced you are demonizing an entire group of people just to suit your political ideas. To say that gun owners as a group are imbalanced is to deny the facts. Most gun owners aren't going out and killing people and committing crimes. Yes it's more likely that someone who owns a gun will commit homicide and our suicide, but you didn't say that. You said gun owners are largely insecure and imbalanced, and that's bullshit.
Do keep in mind that this brainiac is attempting to argue that gang members/leaders NEED their guns and that hunters are unbalanced wannabe "macho men" who want to use their guns to disprove some inadequacy.
Yeah, I had that in mind but it's so stupid I didn't even feel like addressing it.
Which has nothing to do with constitutional rights and guns. Last time I checked gangs aren't exactly why guns are permitted in our society.
If you want utterly ridiculous arguments, and dippy seems to, consider SC permits people to carry concealed guns into bars yet bans smoking marijuanna..
Pretty obvious marijuanna is often used as a murder weapon. :rolleyes:
Quote from: "AllPurposeAtheist"If you want utterly ridiculous arguments, and dippy seems to, consider SC permits people to carry concealed guns into bars yet bans smoking marijuanna..
Pretty obvious marijuanna is often used as a murder weapon. :rolleyes:
Yeah, that's incredibly stupid.
yes all opininos are of equal value.
Quote from: "darsenfeld"yes all opininos are of equal value.
Except yours.
er...then state who the opinion police is, kindly.. lol.. all subjective beliefs are of equal value, it's just society or the individual who says different..
that said, i've "insulted" millions of Americans, whatever......
Quote from: "darsenfeld"yes all opininos are of equal value.
No they aren't. An opinion formed out of ignorance of the factors involved has far less value than one formed after clearly understanding all factors involved.
Quote from: "Johan"Quote from: "darsenfeld"yes all opininos are of equal value.
No they aren't. An opinion formed out of ignorance of the factors involved has far less value than one formed after clearly understanding all factors involved.
Like I said his :)
Quote from: "Johan"Quote from: "darsenfeld"yes all opininos are of equal value.
No they aren't. An opinion formed out of ignorance of the factors involved has far less value than one formed after clearly understanding all factors involved.
I don't agree. an opinion is a purely subjective point. all opinions are of equal moral value ultimately. 200 years ago, slavery was seen as good, today it's not. we see eating fried foods as normal, people in the future may not. see, subjective...
kind of think you're a bit mindblind..
Quote from: "darsenfeld"er...then state who the opinion police is, kindly.. lol.. all subjective beliefs are of equal value, it's just society or the individual who says different..
that said, i've "insulted" millions of Americans, whatever......
Did you even read my post?
Quote from: "darsenfeld"Quote from: "Johan"Quote from: "darsenfeld"yes all opininos are of equal value.
No they aren't. An opinion formed out of ignorance of the factors involved has far less value than one formed after clearly understanding all factors involved.
I don't agree. an opinion is a purely subjective point. all opinions are of equal moral value ultimately. 200 years ago, slavery was seen as good, today it's not. we see eating fried foods as normal, people in the future may not. see, subjective...
kind of think you're a bit mindblind..
Of course you believe this, this train(wreck) of thought allows you to keep pontificating as if you have an ounce of intelligence. Allow me to elaborate if I may, I posit that you are no where near this intellectual that you think yourself to be. My evidence is thus: 1. Your penchant for attempting to pose counter arguments consisting of "I disagree" and "It(the subject at hand) is subjective". 2. Your complete inability to see that the arguments that vary from point 1 are composed mostly of asinine droolings of someone who obviously does not bother to think before typing. 3. The fact that as of yet you have yet to provide one shred of evidence for any of the crap that you have spewed on this forum, despite having asked for proof of anyone who dares to counter your bullshit with a clear and concise argument. And 4. When presented with evidence that counters your own poorly held beliefs you either retreat to point 1, or completely ignore the main body of the evidence and skim the reading to come to a(usually incorrect) assumption of the source material.
Quote from: "AllPurposeAtheist"Which has nothing to do with constitutional rights and guns. Last time I checked gangs aren't exactly why guns are permitted in our society.
er.. no. but then based on the reason why gangs exist (which you're seemingly ignorant too) so yeah...er.. i don't care really.
Quote from: "AllPurposeAtheist"Which has nothing to do with constitutional rights and guns. Last time I checked gangs aren't exactly why guns are permitted in our society.
er.. no. but then based on the reason why gangs exist (which you're seemingly ignorant too) so yeah...er.. i don't care really.
Quote from: "Moralnihilist"Of course you believe this, this train(wreck) of thought allows you to keep pontificating as if you have an ounce of intelligence. Allow me to elaborate if I may, I posit that you are no where near this intellectual that you think yourself to be. My evidence is thus: 1. Your penchant for attempting to pose counter arguments consisting of "I disagree" and "It(the subject at hand) is subjective". 2. Your complete inability to see that the arguments that vary from point 1 are composed mostly of asinine droolings of someone who obviously does not bother to think before typing. 3. The fact that as of yet you have yet to provide one shred of evidence for any of the crap that you have spewed on this forum, despite having asked for proof of anyone who dares to counter your bullshit with a clear and concise argument. And 4. When presented with evidence that counters your own poorly held beliefs you either retreat to point 1, or completely ignore the main body of the evidence and skim the reading to come to a(usually incorrect) assumption of the source material.
sorry i don't believe in intelligence. er.. you overskip arguments all the time, whatever dude.... though i'm amused since you claim intelligence, but then cite liberal morality as an absolute despite claiming nihilism as a base.. i don't care, you have poor sociological knowledge seemingly...
Quote from: "darsenfeld"Quote from: "Moralnihilist"Of course you believe this, this train(wreck) of thought allows you to keep pontificating as if you have an ounce of intelligence. Allow me to elaborate if I may, I posit that you are no where near this intellectual that you think yourself to be. My evidence is thus: 1. Your penchant for attempting to pose counter arguments consisting of "I disagree" and "It(the subject at hand) is subjective". 2. Your complete inability to see that the arguments that vary from point 1 are composed mostly of asinine droolings of someone who obviously does not bother to think before typing. 3. The fact that as of yet you have yet to provide one shred of evidence for any of the crap that you have spewed on this forum, despite having asked for proof of anyone who dares to counter your bullshit with a clear and concise argument. And 4. When presented with evidence that counters your own poorly held beliefs you either retreat to point 1, or completely ignore the main body of the evidence and skim the reading to come to a(usually incorrect) assumption of the source material.
sorry i don't believe in intelligence. er.. you overskip arguments all the time, whatever dude..
Thank you for proving my point more succinctly than I ever could.
And no junior, I never omit a valid well thought out counter to the posts I have made here.
lulz.. i'm not sure if I should believe that.
But yes, I contend gangs per their lifestyle use guns. And yes, all aspects of society must be perfect since there are not circumstances causing violence and crime, right? Maybe it's just me, but I'd have more sympathy for a young person without parents, who extorts money with his gang friends with a gun (no other way out) than some hick redneck, who may not even live in a rural area, but kills an animal because his "great, great grand pappy hunted them" (he had too most likely, if he couldn't afford to rear cattle or sheep or something..)
Again, you claim intelligence, but for a supposed nihilist you don't really get the world that much, or triggers for human behaviour.
Quote from: "darsenfeld"lulz.. i'm not sure if I should believe that.
But yes, I contend gangs per their lifestyle use guns. And yes, all aspects of society must be perfect since there are not circumstances causing violence and crime, right? Maybe it's just me, but I'd have more sympathy for a young person without parents, who extorts money with his gang friends with a gun (no other way out) than some hick redneck, who may not even live in a rural area, but kills an animal because his "great, great grand pappy hunted them" (he had too most likely, if he couldn't afford to rear cattle or sheep or something..)
Again, you claim intelligence, but for a supposed nihilist you don't really get the world that much, or triggers for human behaviour.
Point 1.
And I have shown that gangs can and do exist without the usage of guns. The UK being a prime example. Something that your poor attempt at an argument fails to take into account. And that same environment that puts out gangs ALSO puts out doctors, lawyers, plenty of college educated people, factory workers, police officers, and too many other productive members of society to list. So there goes the no way out argument.
Now on to the "redneck" portion of this supposed argument of yours. You argue that it is a cultural need for gang members to need guns AND THEN dismiss hunters using the same argument. This brings me back to my earlier post that you simply lack the intellect to understand that what you are posting is not only asinine droolings but highly stupid.
And since you are now going to attempt to call me out as a "supposed nihilist" allow me to correct you here as well.
I am a moral nihilist. This means that I believe that that nothing is intrinsically moral or immoral. Thats it. Morality is constructed, a complex set of rules and recommendations that may give a psychological, social, or economical advantage to its adherents, but is otherwise without universal or even relative truth in any sense.
Again here you go spouting off at the mouth again without an idea of what it actually means to be a moral nihilist. Thats point 2.
I have never claimed intellect. My words, actions, and posts show my intellect.
Yours shows a failure of intellect.
Face it junior,
you have been found wanting this entire argument.
er.. yes, but gangs form for proven sociological reasons. and yes, social exclusion lack of opportunity is a major cause of gang membership/activity. Some do get out, but then this doesn't negate the social reality. why do you think most gun activity i
No human being alive in 2014, unless s/he thinks it's 20,000 BCE, NEEDS to hunt. His or her reasons for doing so are not valid IMO, and not a matter of circumstance.
Sorry, but it's just an opinion, as yeah people born into difficult circumstances take more measures than hick Dixie-fellow who may not live in the bayou, swamp, or forest and doesn't hunt out of necessity. Is empathy wrong now?
Quote from: "darsenfeld"er.. yes, but gangs form for proven sociological reasons. and yes, social exclusion lack of opportunity is a major cause of gang membership/activity. Some do get out, but then this doesn't negate the social reality. why do you think most gun activity i
No human being alive in 2014, unless s/he thinks it's 20,000 BCE, NEEDS to hunt. His or her reasons for doing so are not valid IMO, and not a matter of circumstance.
Sorry, but it's just an opinion, as yeah people born into difficult circumstances take more measures than hick Dixie-fellow who may not live in the bayou, swamp, or forest and doesn't hunt out of necessity. Is empathy wrong now?
More get out than join gangs and stay in them.
And no person alive in 2014 NEEDS to join a gang.
Again you the same argument is used to both prove and disprove your entire argument. You simply lack the intelligence to see that the "idea" that you are putting forward is fundamentally flawed in that it is made up of 100% dumb. You fail to see that a person born into poverty is the same regardless of location. If it is right for a gang member to own a gun to help feed themselves and raise their station then it also is right for the hunter to hunt using a gun to put food on his families table. Since you are willing to overlook the fact that many more people are not in gangs in the inter cities and go on to become useful members of society. Your reason sited is a cultural reason. Then you must be willing to overlook the fact that although the hunter may be able to provide food for his family that a culture that prefers hunting to buying mass produced meat, would indicate the need to hunt.
Presented without comment.
Quote from: "darsenfeld"sorry i don't believe in intelligence.
Quote from: "Moralnihilist"Quote from: "darsenfeld"er.. yes, but gangs form for proven sociological reasons. and yes, social exclusion lack of opportunity is a major cause of gang membership/activity. Some do get out, but then this doesn't negate the social reality. why do you think most gun activity i
No human being alive in 2014, unless s/he thinks it's 20,000 BCE, NEEDS to hunt. His or her reasons for doing so are not valid IMO, and not a matter of circumstance.
Sorry, but it's just an opinion, as yeah people born into difficult circumstances take more measures than hick Dixie-fellow who may not live in the bayou, swamp, or forest and doesn't hunt out of necessity. Is empathy wrong now?
More get out than join gangs and stay in them.
And no person alive in 2014 NEEDS to join a gang.
Again you the same argument is used to both prove and disprove your entire argument. You simply lack the intelligence to see that the "idea" that you are putting forward is fundamentally flawed in that it is made up of 100% dumb. You fail to see that a person born into poverty is the same regardless of location. If it is right for a gang member to own a gun to help feed themselves and raise their station then it also is right for the hunter to hunt using a gun to put food on his families table. Since you are willing to overlook the fact that many more people are not in gangs in the inter cities and go on to become useful members of society. Your reason sited is a cultural reason. Then you must be willing to overlook the fact that although the hunter may be able to provide food for his family that a culture that prefers hunting to buying mass produced meat, would indicate the need to hunt.
er.... yes, I'm judgmental since I'm looking down on hicks who hunt for cosmetic reasons, big deal..
Though your example is merely cultural/cosmetic, joining gangs lends to wider soci0-economic and emotional issues, but yeah, whatever... I'm not really interested in intelligence, i'm not a teenage nerd (though you may be, i dunno..) and to me intelligence is a moot point (I await the "you don't know me!" angle, but "intelligent" people know others judge them at will and move on...)
Look, if you can accept disparate views (you claim to be a nihilist after all) then yes, choosing to hunt is a cosmetic choice, no different to choosing to buy a Ford over a Nissan. People don't hunt primarily for emotional support, or due to poverty, or social exclusion. Crime is also required in many cases, this is fact...
Have you ever heard the phrase "you catch more flies with honey..."?
Now consider your anti-gun argument. "You stupid gun owners are stupid hicks who need to feel macho by shooting stuff." That will win over lots of people, I'm sure.
huh? let you keep your guns, it's not my worry...
Quote from: "darsenfeld"Quote from: "Moralnihilist"Quote from: "darsenfeld"er.. yes, but gangs form for proven sociological reasons. and yes, social exclusion lack of opportunity is a major cause of gang membership/activity. Some do get out, but then this doesn't negate the social reality. why do you think most gun activity i
No human being alive in 2014, unless s/he thinks it's 20,000 BCE, NEEDS to hunt. His or her reasons for doing so are not valid IMO, and not a matter of circumstance.
Sorry, but it's just an opinion, as yeah people born into difficult circumstances take more measures than hick Dixie-fellow who may not live in the bayou, swamp, or forest and doesn't hunt out of necessity. Is empathy wrong now?
More get out than join gangs and stay in them.
And no person alive in 2014 NEEDS to join a gang.
Again you the same argument is used to both prove and disprove your entire argument. You simply lack the intelligence to see that the "idea" that you are putting forward is fundamentally flawed in that it is made up of 100% dumb. You fail to see that a person born into poverty is the same regardless of location. If it is right for a gang member to own a gun to help feed themselves and raise their station then it also is right for the hunter to hunt using a gun to put food on his families table. Since you are willing to overlook the fact that many more people are not in gangs in the inter cities and go on to become useful members of society. Your reason sited is a cultural reason. Then you must be willing to overlook the fact that although the hunter may be able to provide food for his family that a culture that prefers hunting to buying mass produced meat, would indicate the need to hunt.
er.... yes, I'm judgmental since I'm looking down on hicks who hunt for cosmetic reasons, big deal..
Though your example is merely cultural/cosmetic, joining gangs lends to wider soci0-economic and emotional issues, but yeah, whatever... I'm not really interested in intelligence, i'm not a teenage nerd (though you may be, i dunno..) and to me intelligence is a moot point (I await the "you don't know me!" angle, but "intelligent" people know others judge them at will and move on...)
Look, if you can accept disparate views (you claim to be a nihilist after all) then yes, choosing to hunt is a cosmetic choice, no different to choosing to buy a Ford over a Nissan. People don't hunt primarily for emotional support, or due to poverty, or social exclusion. Crime is also required in many cases, this is fact...
Wow another argument that begins with point 1....
The reason I believe you aren't interested in intelligence is it requires the use of logic, something that you have yet to show an ounce of. And baseless insults are the sign of someone who realizes that they are severely out gunned in a debate. I offered my reasonings for thinking you lack intelligence, you failed to offer a counter, logically this leads me to believe that you either lack the ability to defend any of your "ideas"(and are thus here simply to troll) or that you acquiesce that my theory regarding your lack of any intelligence being correct(and again are here simply to troll). Either situation leads me to the same logical conclusion, you are a troll with no intelligence.
Frankly I don't give 2 rats asses on what your pathetically empty head comes up with. Its when you serve a direct challenge to me(I hunt and I eat what I kill) based off of faulty logic, obvious lack of thought, or simple stupidity that I took up this cause. You have yet to defend any of your points other to say that either you don't agree with me, or to insinuate that either I am not a "true" nihilist. Something that I don't claim to be I am however a Moral Nihilist, fairly decent difference, and had you even bothered to do a basic web search instead of just spouting off dumb, you would have found.
Again, you know this is getting quite sad, people DO hunt due to poverty(here in the US and in plenty of other countries all over the world, something that yet again you can find through the most basic web searches). There are also hunters that take the meat and have it professionally butchered and sell the meat on to restaurant suppliers providing them with income and providing the "social elite" with expensive game meat that is all the rage in high end restaurants.
Based solely on this disconnect between reality and the crap that you spew, I would suggest that it is YOU who lacks an understanding of the human condition and its causes. My theory for this disconnect is that you simply lack the brains to understand the amount of dumb that is attempting to be put forward as some sort of intelligent debate.
But, I digress, I will no longer feed the troll. Your argument is pathetic, misinformed, and uneducated. I truly feel sorry for you, to believe the crap that you put forward must lead to a miserable life for you.
er...
Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk
Quote from: "Moralnihilist"er.... yes, I'm judgmental since I'm looking down on hicks who hunt for cosmetic reasons, big deal..
Though your example is merely cultural/cosmetic, joining gangs lends to wider soci0-economic and emotional issues, but yeah, whatever... I'm not really interested in intelligence, i'm not a teenage nerd (though you may be, i dunno..) and to me intelligence is a moot point (I await the "you don't know me!" angle, but "intelligent" people know others judge them at will and move on...)
Look, if you can accept disparate views (you claim to be a nihilist after all) then yes, choosing to hunt is a cosmetic choice, no different to choosing to buy a Ford over a Nissan. People don't hunt primarily for emotional support, or due to poverty, or social exclusion. Crime is also required in many cases, this is fact...
Wow another argument that begins with point 1....
The reason I believe you aren't interested in intelligence is it requires the use of logic, something that you have yet to show an ounce of. And baseless insults are the sign of someone who realizes that they are severely out gunned in a debate. I offered my reasonings for thinking you lack intelligence, you failed to offer a counter, logically this leads me to believe that you either lack the ability to defend any of your "ideas"(and are thus here simply to troll) or that you acquiesce that my theory regarding your lack of any intelligence being correct(and again are here simply to troll). Either situation leads me to the same logical conclusion, you are a troll with no intelligence.
Frankly I don't give 2 rats asses on what your pathetically empty head comes up with. Its when you serve a direct challenge to me(I hunt and I eat what I kill) based off of faulty logic, obvious lack of thought, or simple stupidity that I took up this cause. You have yet to defend any of your points other to say that either you don't agree with me, or to insinuate that either I am not a "true" nihilist. Something that I don't claim to be I am however a Moral Nihilist, fairly decent difference, and had you even bothered to do a basic web search instead of just spouting off dumb, you would have found.
Again, you know this is getting quite sad, people DO hunt due to poverty(here in the US and in plenty of other countries all over the world, something that yet again you can find through the most basic web searches). There are also hunters that take the meat and have it professionally butchered and sell the meat on to restaurant suppliers providing them with income and providing the "social elite" with expensive game meat that is all the rage in high end restaurants.
Based solely on this disconnect between reality and the crap that you spew, I would suggest that it is YOU who lacks an understanding of the human condition and its causes. My theory for this disconnect is that you simply lack the brains to understand the amount of dumb that is attempting to be put forward as some sort of intelligent debate.
But, I digress, I will no longer feed the troll. Your argument is pathetic, misinformed, and uneducated. I truly feel sorry for you, to believe the crap that you put forward must lead to a miserable life for you.[/quote]
er.. I never said I didn't believe in intelligence. as for baseless insults, you insult me so I insult you back.
Logic is also spent, so whatever... nihilism isn't even mentally healthy, so I don't care...lol..
And yes, I understand the human condition. I know sociological causes, you don't even know that most people hunt out of insecurity.
Sorry, it seems others holding opinions offends you.
Quote from: "Moralnihilist"Quote from: "darsenfeld"yes. Gang leaders/members are such based on their environment and lifestyle. as they live in a crime-oriented/violent scope, they NEED guns to live. Rationality is subjective. I personally deem hunting immoral, but I don't care about the hunter. I also don't think people need guns.
[ Image (//http://global3.memecdn.com/the-stupid-is-strong_o_1629373.jpg) ]
A gang leader/member, who will use their gun to rape, kill, rob, and or maim(usually all of the above) is a stable person? On what fucking planet does that make any fucking sense? Do you not see the sheer amount of stupid that you are posting? And since you just LOVE to post stupid without bothering to look anything up, a neat little bit of info for you. Gangs existed prior to guns, they conducted their business without guns for the most part until the late 60's. GANGS DONT NEED GUNS, IT JUST MAKES KILLING EASIER.
Hunters, for the most part need guns. There are very few people that can pull a bow with a heavy enough draw to down a deer or other large game. And another neat little bit of info for you, there are less murders committed by people who hunt vs the gang members you claim to be balanced.
Honest question for you. Did you by chance take the short bus to school?
er... who cares who kills or rapes others? It's a free world and morals don't exist.
Quote from: "darsenfeld"er.. I never said I didn't believe in intelligence.
Quote from: "darsenfeld"sorry i don't believe in intelligence.
Liar.(page 7)
Quote from: "darsenfeld"as for baseless insults, you insult me so I insult you back.
I can at least offer reasons for you to dispute. Something that you have not done, in fact you have simply gone on and proved my point by using the same crap I accused you of.
Quote from: "darsenfeld"Logic is also spent, so whatever... nihilism isn't even mentally healthy, so I don't care...lol..
Oh neat, a new "argument". Lets see.....
Nope its the same type of crap, an unthought out, nearly incoherent, rambling, unbacked attempt at an insult.
Quote from: "darsenfeld"And yes, I understand the human condition. I know sociological causes, you don't even know that most people hunt out of insecurity.
Proof?
Quote from: "darsenfeld"Sorry, it seems others holding opinions offends you.
Actually there are quite a few people(nearly everyone) on this forum that hold differing opinions to what I do. Most of them I disagree with, however, most others manage to back their opinions with something of substance. At the very least they back them with something better than your "nuh huh".
Quote from: "darsenfeld"er... who cares who kills or rapes others? It's a free world and morals don't exist.
If you had paid attention then you would know that this was answered here (//http://www.atheistforums.com/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3906&p=1000766&hilit=morals#p1000766). Either you're an idiot incapable of learning or you're wllfully ignorant, which makes you an asshole.
Quote from: "darsenfeld"And yes, I understand the human condition. I know sociological causes, you don't even know that most people hunt out of insecurity.
Hahahahahahaha...you're a fucking dumbass.
Do you have evidence for this? Or are you just talking out of your ass? Do you have surveys, statistics, or any fucking thing of that nature to support your opinion that most hunters are insecure? If not you can fuck right off and drop that fucking line.
You can't hide behind opinion when your opinion is something that can be confirmed or refuted by facts. You made the claim, now back it up motherfucker.
You keep on harping that "all opinions are equal" bullshit when that's simply not true. You can't go around saying that most x are y without shit to back it up. Wanna few outrageous examples?
"Most whites are perverts."
"Most blacks are criminals."
"Most Hispanics are lazy."
"Most gays have HIV/AIDS."
"Most women are sluts."
"Most men are violent."
These are all things I've seen said by ignorant fucking assholes. You know what they all have in common besides using stereotypes? None of the people saying them had any fucking evidence that held up to scrutiny.
er.. most people are rational.
So it figures if you're experienced "many people" say that..
what's more is that you amuse me.
why do presume you believe everybody owes their time?
You are as impressive as a big terd in a toilet after you opened your mouth. Eve is still the Queen of the trolls, and still hasn't found a King, and neither have we. 8-) Solitary
meh, don't care...
Quote from: "darsenfeld"er.. most people are rational.
So it figures if you're experienced "many people" say that..
Nice job ignoring everything I said, fucktard. Let me quote it again for you.
Quote from: "The Skeletal Atheist"Quote from: "darsenfeld"And yes, I understand the human condition. I know sociological causes, you don't even know that most people hunt out of insecurity.
Hahahahahahaha...you're a fucking dumbass.
Do you have evidence for this? Or are you just talking out of your ass? Do you have surveys, statistics, or any fucking thing of that nature to support your opinion that most hunters are insecure? If not you can fuck right off and drop that fucking line.
You can't hide behind opinion when your opinion is something that can be confirmed or refuted by facts. You made the claim, now back it up motherfucker.
You keep on harping that "all opinions are equal" bullshit when that's simply not true. You can't go around saying that most x are y without shit to back it up. Wanna few outrageous examples?
"Most whites are perverts."
"Most blacks are criminals."
"Most Hispanics are lazy."
"Most gays have HIV/AIDS."
"Most women are sluts."
"Most men are violent."
These are all things I've seen said by ignorant fucking assholes. You know what they all have in common besides using stereotypes? None of the people saying them had any fucking evidence that held up to scrutiny.
Quote from: "darsenfeld"meh, don't care...
Nice trolling.
(//http://i391.photobucket.com/albums/oo360/banks272/Cartoons_regular/TROLLS/Internet_troll7.jpg)
(//https://www.nationalreview.com/sites/default/files/uploaded/Train%20Wreck%20Two_0.gif)
I vote to toss dorkenfeld in the dungeon. We really need a dungeon here to let the dorkenfelds of the world just blather on to themselves.
I know that Alex Jones made an ass of himself when he went off on CNN about how Hitler and Mao and Stalin grabbed guns, but really, he's right.
eh, sometimes the things that don't work are the evidence of what else would. Wasn't it Edison who said that with all his failures he now knew 999 things that didn't work and thusly, nothing was lost, but much was gained.
Edison probably stole that from Tesla. Cause he's a bastard.
Quote from: AllPurposeAtheist on January 19, 2014, 09:40:18 PM
Wikipedia is notoriously inaccurate, not a reliable source.
Statistically Wikipedia contains fewer errors than the Encyclopaedia Britanica.
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/3061/is-wikipedia-more-reliable-than-the-encyclopaedia-britannica (http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/3061/is-wikipedia-more-reliable-than-the-encyclopaedia-britannica)