Guncrazy USA

Well as with any debate it is easier to ignore points that disagree with a belief or opinion.

 

Hey that is me, my thoughts exactly. I dont owe anyone or thing but rather do so out of the desire to assist others. Its not my obligation nor anyone elses just a desire when it comes right down to it.

Its like we dont need these computers, the tvs, the atvs, the boats, the campers, the multi pair of shoes and closets full of clothes but rather we want them.

Cool now I know who Iam , I feel so enlightend.

 

fyi... i will defend the right to bear arms in the USA beyond any inbicile's attempt to refute such a right... plz lay in on in a big way honey!!!!!

 

Seriously are you completely "Off your rocker" Balbus? Nothing in that post about libertarianism made any sense whatsoever. Spooner is no Anarchist (If its the spooner you mean that posts here) he's about as right wing as you can go befo you meet fascism

You also claim that the left wings better argument is a negation of shanes libertarian ideology of total irresponsibility. It is not, the left wings better argument is a positive assertion of the values of good inherent in the idea of society. It is the irresponsibility of libertarianism that negates the left wing. They have no positive claim because they have never had the responsibility of forming a country. It is socialism that has had the major influence over north Europe and communism that has had most influence over the baltic states, without mass support these would not have been the political giants they became.

As for shanes claim that anarchism is libertarianism this is clearly the most stupid claim I have heard in a long time, except that he is right but only when the term anarchism is used in the way governments, media, and americans use it, which is to say they use the term anarchy to mean chaos. No true anarchist wants chaos and that is why libertarianism is not anarchy.
Anarchists believe in the rule of law and orderly society. They do not believe in irresponsible libertarianism. Shanes repeated misuse and misrepresentation of anarchy is either deliberate or he is simply in need of education and truthfully so are you if you argue such nonesense as in the above post

 

Ming, as I understand what anarchy is, it isn't anything to do with chaos at all. This false image was introduced in the early twentieth century when the European Royal houses of aristocrats (calling them a Mafia would be an insult to the Cosa Nostra) tried to maintain their plagued stranglehold on the populace, especially since the populace found slavery too unsavoury, even by their own prejudiced standards.

New ideas were forming, where people took charge of their own lives. Anarchy is Greek, "Without leadership". Nothing about "chaos" there, which I think is also a Greek word.

So, as I undrstand it, maybe those who have been recruited in the lower ranks of libertarianism possibly don't recognize what they represent, but perhaps they like the sound the word represents, i.e. liberty, a recurring image in the American dream.

Just like Shakespeare wrote 'a rose by any other word smells as sweet', however, fascism by any other word is still a boot in your face every day for the rest of your life.

An anarchist does not depend on guns. Anarchists depend on their brain. It appears that in America they need peripherals, and, as a consequence, would rather see their children slaughtered in school, than have to rely solely on that grey bit of jelly that resides in everyone's head.

 

What? No one wants to see their children killed. Perhaps you have the ultimate solution...is it a gun, what exactly is it? Or should we continue to pit our children against each other...is that the solution? More reality shows that pit everyone against each other.

 

Voting for favorites like on American Idol, isn't that just about what the roman's did with their thumbs up and down when they fed the christians to the lions?

 

Actually, I would rather shoot A-holes like you, in a heartbeat.

 

Hahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Another silly redneck. Can you shoot people on the internet mandell? You know that game Doom 3? Let me tell you a secret. It's not real!

 

Whot the tar nation?

Internator person I steel havent fund ma way round usin this difficolt sistem so pliz could you hi lite in perpul the foloween messige =

Originaly Postit by Wite Scorpions (in thick letters pleese)

"Sum shit about our brains made o jelly"

End of hi lited area.

Boss Hog's reply =

Boolshit you sumbitch. Who are you callin a dumb jelly brein? All I have sin so far is intilligint peeple like Derek Pit an freedom fiters like Yankee burn an houmorous Korean commediennes like Zoumi yee.

Oll Ive seen from yor side is sabotass from peeple like you an that Bilbo who tolks like he owns the place, n that new commoonist with the bold heed.

Your oll a bunch o trollickin tickturds n well done to mantle from the KKK fo risking an APB fo threatenin with illegal murder in a public four room in ordr to deefend his rites.

yoo will not win you ill logical returds. Ill spit on yo grave before I hand over my Macs

 

aaaand.....

You're welcome.

 

and an-caps and individualists are still anarchists.


anarchism is not synonymous with collectivism, communism, or socialism.
tucker, spooner, stirner and the like are just as much part of the anarchist traditon as anyone else, and just because the europeans like their "non-heirarchies" tinted red and tied up in committees doesnt mean they get to decide what form of anarchism is legit and what isn't.

i'm not interested in living in a hive.

 

No, that's a historical misconception. The Roman Senate voted on things, they just fed ANYONE they didn't like to the lions and called THEM barbarian. Celtic peoples were using soap and bathing regularly for nearly 1000 years before the "civilized" roman empire.

 

You know it seems more likely the firearms are not even close to the issue in the schools as much as some other outside problem. I justify this statement becuase when I was growing up we could bring guns to school. Kids left them in thier trucks during hunting season, several had been brought in during different history topics for a sort of show and tell, and in a school of 2000 kids not one shot another still to this date.


School shootings are isolated in the first place and perhaps finding out the reasons behind the shootings will solve the real problem. If your normal and something thru time has driven you to kill your peers should that something not be discovered and delt with?

I have read a few of these (Moses Lake) the kid was for years tormented by his popular peers. He was beat on, he was sexually assualted and when he took steps to correct the issue the response he got from the school was "Dont be such a tattle tale". His final straw sent him the next day with a revolver shooting his teacher and 3 students who the day befor had pants him and tossed him into the girls restroom while the teacher watched and did nothing.

Im not saying the reason is justified but really how much does a person put up with until they cant take it no more??

I dont think the firearms are an issue but rather an incorrect response to the real problems.

 

Pitt

I still see you haven’t given any examples of the things you have accused me of, do you find lying so easy?

**

As to the whole ‘fear’ thing it has been covered at length, if anyone wishes to re-read the full sequence a good place to start would be my post 156 on page 16 of the ‘Gun ownership is MAD? thread
http://www.hipforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=189921&page=16&pp=10

But be warned it is long, anyway I’m not worried in pointing to it (unlike Pitt who prefers not to reference things) if people stick with it they will understand just how silly the whole seatbelt comparison was especially in regard to Pitt.

There seemed to be two levels to the argument

1) that seatbelts and guns are precautions and don’t denote fear.

2) that seatbelts and guns were similar mechanisms of protection.

The problem with the first is that Pitt had spent a lot of his time prior to the comparison saying he felt threatened by crime –

“I’ve pointed out that you seem afraid of crime. I’ve given my evidence for believing this several times.
I asked what threat warranted wanting a gun as protection. You replied that the threat was crime.
You went on to claim that people without a gun could be killed by a criminal.
If you think something is a threat you must to some degree fear it because people don’t fear something that is unthreatening.
It was only when I pointed out that you seemed afraid that you began to back track on the severity of the threat.”

**

The second point doesn’t work for the reasons I’ve already noted.

**

The thing is that this has been gone through at length and Pitt still cannot explain why he can feel threatened by something he is in no way afraid of and doesn’t seem to have any rational reply to the second point either.

Basically, once again, this is a trick, a red herring, a piece of misdirection to try and hide the fact he still hasn’t addressed the points raised by my theories or answered any of my questions or given actually examples of my supposed infamy.

(oh yes I forgot, like a child, he’s not talking to me because he’s pretending I’ve been so nasty to him)

These are the same kind of ploys he’s used before to try and scupper debate.

**

 

Yank

“Now this here is what is deemed "LEADING"”

It may or may not be but one thing is sure you are not debating my theories you are constructing an excuse not to debate them.

The Vietnamese example doesn’t stand these are meant to be two newspaper reports they are not a theory of why the conflict is taking place. (if you want my theories on Vietnam go to the thread ‘The President lied to start war’
http://www.hipforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=19321&page=2&pp=10
Basically it is that the US misunderstood the conflict imposing there own anti-communism on what was a war of independence)

As to the ‘slant’ it is a difficult question – are you saying that the first paper is claiming that US troops killed 87 civilians and given the well known practice of counting civilians amongst the body count of the enemy would you blindly accept that the US troops actually did kill 66 of the enemy (this is presuming SVC means insurgents)

Also newspaper are money making enterprise and are targeted at certain people I’m making no money from this and the forum is open.

I’ve explained a number of times why I have my views and what I base them on if you have something to say about the theory or them say it, stop dodging.

If you find you are unable to contest it then you should be asking why you can’t.

**

 

I think there is a fundamental problem here, I’m here to try and learn and understand but many here seem here just in an attempt to ‘win’ the argument.

As such they don’t care how dishonest they are, for them it is the winning that counts. It is like religious fundamentalism, of burning the witch to save the witch, it doesn’t matter if you lie and cheat as long as the ‘truth’ wins.

This puts those on the other side at a distinct disadvantage it is not in my favour to lie since that would put a barrier in the way of trying to learn or understand.

So I find that I spend my time not in serious debate but having to point out the lies, misdirection and tricks been played.

It is very disappointing

But it is also interesting why are some people so desperate to stifle real debate?

 

Well you think that things are going to ruin and then you find a pearl.

Yank your story backs up my theory

The attitude of threat and intimidation lends itself very closely to bullying or the persecution of others (remember those injustices in US history I talked about). And this is often seen as acceptable behaviour.

And guns are seen as a means of ‘equalising’ the situation.

So Yank what are the ‘real issues’ in your viewpoint?


**

 

Balbus

You only offer links to other forum posts, these are not facts they are links to what you already have posted, its not a credible source but rather just more of your opinions.

Here is a your post #156....

I have read it, still looking for facts but seems only opinions are located in this thread.

What truths have you supplied other than those in the world according to Balbus?? You merely make points to other posts you personally made in other topics, and sometimes you will find others that agree with your view so you quote them. Why not instead of searching HF you invest effort into looking at other sources??

Well since a debate is nothing more than a simple argument with rules and alot of debates have judges and votes to determin the outcome wanting to win would be the logical path. You might want to know the meaning of debate first perhaps>>>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate

I have yet to see all out lies but rather opinions. As for the fear tactic understand there is a difference between fear and dislike or hate. I dont fear a criminal entering my home I hate the idea of it, for that reason I shall be sure I have a means to deal with it swiftly and effectively.

Now Balbus by you and I having this little discussion we both had stifled the real debate. Most of your posts spend more time away from the real topic and rather slip into issues of what you believe is a lie, ect ect and how this person or that person is avoiding answering some alleged fact that is based off your own words on another post not perhaps facts the rest of the world would call facts but maybe they would call opinions. Then again perhaps research is opinion and all debates seem to have alot of opinion in an attempt to discredit and persuade thier intended group.

 

The injustices in the world period.

A quote "God made men short and God made men tall but Sam Colt made them equal!" If faced with overwheling odds then throughout history one located an equalizer.

Everytime the topic drifts such as using schools ect that changes the view point. They are related but the issue changes too. You have to look at the big picture. What percentage of students has brought guns to school as apposed to what percentage has not?? What percentage of people have commited crimes with guns and what not?? Does this justify removal of guns?? And if removal is not the agenda that what measures are required to tackle the problems such as school shootings or armed robbery??