Defend the Second Amendment!

[SIZE=11pt]Old[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt][/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]What the hell are "statistical samplings of the world"? [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]I’ve explained why I think many Americans seem to feel they need guns out of a sense of fear, this is based mainly on the many, many conversations I’ve had here over the last 14 years, other conversations I’ve had in my life and things I’ve seen and read - which seems to be backed up by some statistical evidence. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]You seem to be saying that I’m wrong because you think I’m wrong, [I’ve asked you to look at some of those many conversations but you have declined][/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]*[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt][/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]This seems rather confused I’ll try to unravel it and tell me if I’ve got it right –[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]I have only said that what he says does not apply very well to what has been said to him[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]You seem to be saying that my conclusions do not fit with what I’m saying I’m using as evidence [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]- But I’m basing what saying mainly on the many, many conversations I’ve had here over the last 14 years, other conversations I’ve had in my life and things I’ve seen and/or read - which seems to be backed up by some statistical evidence.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]mainly because he tries to apply what he has said before without adapting it to what has now been said to him and that makes what he says not well thought out[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]And to you this is because you think my evidence doesn’t fits in with what you are telling me to think now. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]- Sorry but that is just telling me I’m wrong because you think I’m wrong and as pointed out before that isn’t a very rational or reasonable counter argument[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]*[/SIZE]

 

[SIZE=11pt]Interesting philosophically speaking [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]I suppose it comes down to what the ‘reasonable’ is ultimately based on and how ‘reasonable’ it seems to be. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]Can you rationally argue for the existence of a god and then which god, is the Christian god more ‘reasonable’ that the Islamic allah or one of the a Hindu gods? [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]What is more ‘reasonable’ - a belief in some ‘power’ unattached to any organised religion but you know out there that you think of as ‘god’ - or a direct belief in a sacred text even when it seems to run counter to all scientific evidence. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]Religious belief in the end comes down to faith, and faith seems to be able to trump the rational when one comes up against the other. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]Is a Deist more reasonable than a Creationist? [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]I’m an atheist and while I can understand a Deist position, I think people like Creationists are a bit weird and I think those that dogmatically follow some cult to the point of murdering people in its name not only nuts but downright dangerous. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]But is that been reasonable, they all have faith in what they think.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]*[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]Am I a god that knows I’m right – no – I have come to the conclusions I have because of the information and experiences I’ve had – that is how I have come to my ideas around the gun issue in the US. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]Many here don’t seem to like my viewpoint, which is fine in fact more than fine it is great because for me debate is the best way to thrash out ideas and see if they stand and you can’t have a debate without differing viewpoints. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]The problem is that many people’s ‘counter argument’ to what I’m saying is that they think I’m wrong so I must me wrong and to me that doesn’t seem like a reasonable or rational counter argument. [/SIZE]

 

Actually, if you look at the history of "lining up at the "FEMA" camps", it never works out well for those who do. So wouldn't recommend it.

As for "Indian" pacification, except for the decimation of the bison population, guns had very little to do with it. It was European diseases like small pox that for the most part did the "Indian" pacification.

As for this, "Repubs, teapartiers, loosers and criminals of all stripes need guns as to compensate for their shortcomings in the manhood departement", do you have some statistics that shows that your statement about the correlation between "manhood" and the need for guns has some truth in it?

 

You might ask the dope, seeing as he coined the the phrase but I assumed he meant the statistics we've been throwing around.

 

Yes I understand that is what you believe but you will have to agree that is a somewhat subjective opinion, even if it may seem to be "backed up by some statistical evidence".

No that is not what I'm saying, although I disagree with you I have not as of yet said you are "wrong". What I have expressed is that I am somewhat disappointed with your "cut and paste" answers to the concepts put to you. I would just like to hear a more well rounded response from you as to what has been put to you, rather than your word for word repeats of what you have said before that don't really fit well.

 

No that is not what I am saying. What I am saying is that you are taking comments that may have been good answers to comments that were put to years ago and are applying them to comments that are put to you now. The problem is you seem to think that your comments are a good fit and they are not and fit haphazardly at best.

Have you noticed how you repeat yourself with out even bothering to change the wording? This some of what I have been talking about. I have been continually been telling you, I have not told you that you are "wrong" and yet here it is again and again, "that is just telling me I’m wrong because you think I’m wrong and as pointed out before that isn’t a very rational or reasonable counter argument". This does not even apply to what I have said to you and yet you seem to think it fits.

What I am actually telling you is; you are leaning on your laurels from years ago and are not bothering to update them to address the concepts that are being put to you now. Whereas they may still be good concepts they no longer accurately address the concepts that are being put to you now and that is disconcerting and makes your answers seem not well thought out.

 

Old

LOL to repeat once again – I have never said it wasn’t an opinion, a hypotheses, a theory – I’ve explained it at length and in detail, and which is based on many, many conversations I’ve had here over the last 14 years, other conversations I’ve had in my life and things I’ve seen and/or read - which seems to be backed up by some statistical evidence.

Have you a rational and reasonable counter argument?

Where didn’t they fit well - can you give some examples, as I’ve explained I do repeat myself because many times people ask me to repeat stuff.

Sorry but that doesn’t make sense – are you saying that what was said to me and what I’ve said in the past is now wrong only because they were said in the past?

So your counter argument against what I’m saying is that its old – that you don’t think it is even wrong but it must be - not well thought out ­– because it’s old.

Sorry that doesn’t make sense.

Honestly man that isn’t a rational or reasonable counter argument.

 

The reason for feeling the need to posses a gun.

Not really, you are relating from a wholly subjective state in trying to dissemble his points that are based on a broader world view. Your position makes sense to you from where you sit. Where we see together it can be seen that you aren't even speaking the same language to his points as his speaks to yours. A statistical sampling in this case refers to number of viewpoints that are considered in examining the issue. All viewpoints have relevance and must be considered to provide a total picture. From this perspective we can always come to a statistically prevalent recognition or common understanding.

As far as the unreasonable question, reasonable means agreeable to sound reason or judgment. To say that his points are not well thought out indicates you do not think he has sound judgment on the issue. Even when you think you are right you are wrong.

It remains obvious to me that understanding one fifth of what I said remains a high mark for you.

Sometimes I feel sorry for having bothered your deep and unrelenting slumber to the degree i might have. Like when I ask my old dog to move from his comfortable position as sometimes it obviously is uncomfortable for him to stir at that point.

As far as my objectivity I need more of a sampling than just your saying that i am not an objective bystander. I stand by and account for all represented perspectives while you defend your isolated case.

 

I told you about condition. The evidence is the idea of attaining power is attractive only to the weak.

 

I'm kinda', sorta, glad that america was kinda', sorta' insecure after pearl harbor. I feel kinda', sorta', glad that I escaped when a guy pulled a gun on me. Course I don't really need one in this kinda',sorta' ciivilized world in which we live. I'll just kinda', sorta' run again if it happens again. No problems here.

Matter of scale, now isn't it?

 

Kinda certainly is a matter of scale as well as gladness since it's kinda. The fundamental of the condition remains the same whether it is a lot or a little.

 

Quote
LOL to repeat once again – I have never said it wasn’t an opinion, a hypotheses, a theory – I’ve explained it at length and in detail, and which is based on many, many conversations I’ve had here over the last 14 years, other conversations I’ve had in my life and things I’ve seen and/or read - which seems to be backed up by some statistical evidence.

Opinion? Would that be an objective or subjective opinion?

Quote
Have you a rational and reasonable counter argument?

For an opinion? You have the right to have any opinion you want. Just don't expect others to except it as fact as you seem to want them to do.

Quote
Where didn’t they fit well - can you give some examples, as I’ve explained I do repeat myself because many times people ask me to repeat stuff.

I for one have never asked you to repeat anything and yet you keep repeating yourself to me why is that?

Quote
Sorry but that doesn’t make sense – are you saying that what was said to me and what I’ve said in the past is now wrong only because they were said in the past?

Of course it doesn’t make sense to you, because you are so caught up in trying to make things people say to fit what you want to them to say, that you can’t understand the nuances of what is being said to you.

You asked for an example, well this is one. If you go back and read what I have said to you, you will notice that I have never said that what you are saying is wrong and in fact I have actually said to you; “I have never said what you are saying is wrong” and yet you continue to say that I am saying you are wrong. So what you are saying to me does not fit what I’m saying to you.

Quote
So your counter argument against what I’m saying is that its old – that you don’t think it is even wrong but it must be - not well thought out ­– because it’s old.

Wrong again? No being old does not make it right or wrong but does mean that it is not very likely to fit well to the discussion that is being carried on right now.

Quote
Sorry that doesn’t make sense.

That very well may be because you continue to make what is said to into something you can copy and paste an answer to, so you don’t actually need to think about it, rather than reading and trying to understand what is being said to you.

Quote
Honestly man that isn’t a rational or reasonable counter argument.

Perhaps it seems that way because you don’t want to be rational or reasonable in discussing things.

 

Nice try and here I just complimented you on staying away from your babble speak.

 

"Some times a cigar is just a cigar."

 

And condition always comes in pairs of like kind. For instance your cigar crafter and the crafted cigar

In other words you have difficulty with reading comprehension. I know!

 

[SIZE=11pt]Interesting, how is it decided whether what it is based on is reasonable and what is to be used to decide how reasonable it seems to be?[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]I try to be a little more pragmatic; to me in a discussion something is reasonable if it is harmonious internally. If someone does not egregiously contradict themselves on a regular basis I consider them reasonable. [/SIZE]

 

Using your example the "condition" would be between Gun maker and made gun.

Your statement; "the perception of the need for guns comes from some level of insecurity" does not have the same level of "condition", the same connectivity and so can only at best be partly true, if at all.

Does your need to be insulting "come from some level of insecurity"?

 

[SIZE=11pt]Well, I can’t speak for Allah or one of the a Hindu gods but most of the historical philosophers rationally argued for the existence of God and quite a few of them for a Christian God. [/SIZE]

 

Both can be reasonable.

What you are talking about is blind faith, which I would not recommend to any one. The definition faith that I prefer is; "Faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities though not beheld."

Well most of the Creationists I've talked to don't seem very reasonable.

You must know that although all Creationists believe in creation not all who believe in creation are Creationists. I also think that Creationists are a bit weird. Most Christians do not murder people no matter how dogmatic they may be, even Creationists.

 

Okay, I kind of figured you had.

I view it the same way that is why I have not called you unreasonable or wrong but it is the same reason why I find your lackadaisical cut and paste "debating" style somewhat bothersome.

You keep saying that and to tell you the truth that is doing to others exactly what you are saying others are doing to you.