Guncrazy USA

Oh come come shane, one has more fun with the animal kingdom when they cant figgur out what kind of animal you are. I dress up as a tiger but really I am a Lynx
I am a laughing hyena that laughs at people who hate hyena society and I am a meercat and a wolf and emperor of the known universe -

BWouhahahahahahahaha I am a formidable and evil foe you will not defeat me except by exhonorating your own ideology

 

buying a gun is an individual act, banning guns is a collective act(one by definition aimed against the individual).

purchasing something are selling something are both voluntary either party can agree to not complete the transaction at any point, banning something is coercive and leaves no room for individual autonomy.

and as i've stated when has banning something ever stopped it from being bought, sold, or used?

if you don't want your kids buying cocaine you should talk to them about the dangers of cocaine use, not infringe on my right to make a transaction between one individual and the next. If i want to buy and use cocaine and someone else wants to make and sell cocaine, who are you to step in the way?

and btw, the "what about the kids" arguement is pretty lame.

it's not my job to keep your kids away from drugs, anymore than it's my job to make sure you feed them and wash them daily, or that they go to bed at a reasonable hour, or that you dont feed them mcdonalds...

if your kid ends up a fat, dirty, coke head with bad sleeping habits, thats all on you buddy

 

so you judge without fear of being judged.

mature way to have a debate?

 

Oh so you have already started name ca;lling because you dont understand how to defend against someone who hasnt attacked you. I am attacking your argument and you simply say "lame brain" - as though that clears up the problem but no. You should get into arguing and not name calling I thought you would be good at debate. I was looking forward to a debate that didnt have to follow your preconceived ideas of how you could gain the upper hand and appear to have won I dont argue to win. I argue to establish who is in posession of unshakeable facts and has the intelligence to see them in contest with masters of rhetoric and moral debate I thought you were intelligent and up for a friendly but brutal battle of wit - we can do that in any thread you name

I am ming the merciless and will kick your ass

BTW watch this it is extremely clever and will appeal to your type of psyche Iam sure

http://youtube.com/watch?v=zl6hNj1uOkY

 

i didnt call you "lame brain", i said using the "what about the kids" arguement was lame.

understand? the arguement is lame, not name calling.

are you even looking at the screen?

 

again, i didnt call him a name, or say he was blind, i asked if he was looking at the screen.

 

of course it is.

anyone who wants to see a real gun debate should look at DP kicking balbus's virtual ass in the Guns are MAD thread

 

there is none

there are some candidates for president for the Libertarian Party in the u.s., but i dont know who they are as i'm not a member of that party.

i know ron paul is running for the repub nomination in the u.s., that's as close to my politics that any of the mainstream get...

but overall, libertarians, individualist-anarchists, objectivists, minarchists and agorists dont like leaders.

self-ownership

 

I am at the gun show in the morning. I went halves with a guy on a table and between us we had enough misc to fill it pretty well. While setting up I bought a nice older BB gun and think I might buy an old 303 brit if its there in the morning.

Yess 150 tables of nothing but guns, knives and the like for me to forage thru and enjoy.

Hey DP if your close to the border in MO swing by Moutain View and check out the show.

Its great to have the freedoms to stroll thru mountains of firearms and ect, look at 100+ year old winchesters and such.

Is it me or is there alot of like less than 30 day old posters in this thread. Does not matter just noticed it was all.

 

So... you're saying you owe me an apology?

 

Welcome back, Zomie. I was hoping I would get some support in here. Plese help me sort this mess out. I need to get this thread back on topic. Please help me organize a protest like we agreed in the beginning.

 

Oh I'm only here for comic relief. Pop in, poke fun at you all for putting up with 66 pages of idiocy (most of which I refuse to read) then I'm off the the sex forums for my twice daily wank.

Cheers!

 

Hahaha Good old Zoomie! Hey, a sexpot like you doesn't need to wank. I think I saw a Boss Hogg post somewhere that he owns a brothel! Maybe he can give you a freebie, and I've heard that those girls in Texas are someting else Anyway Zoomie, I have followed your posts, and I think that you are probably the most underestimated person in this place. It's actually people like you that can change the world, because you can relate to the common person and can substitute their pain with comic relief. I sense that you have a deep feeling inside you about this. Let it out. The truth might hurt for a bit, but at least it will be out. I know you said in the begining that you would rather not haved a gun. For the life of me I can't see you pulling a trigger against another human being. Don't let anyone intimidate you Zoomie. You are a good person. I have seen the piss takers in here. You are a humorous person. A person who tries to see life in a light way. Don't be offset by the idiots, but don't be scared to disagree with your friends, either. If they are your friends they will understand you on this matter. If they don't, then you have to choose what comes first, your friends, or what you think is right. I only say this, because I see a great human being inside you, Zoomie.

 

That is exactly why we should have guns/ not have guns/ get high/ not get high ect. We are all lucky in some countries becuase we can disagree without fear of attack. Best thing I have read in this whole thread so far!

 

Pitt

If a person has a theory they usually try to discover through research some type of supporting "FACTS" you dont present anything.

But as I’ve pointed out on several occasions my ideas were developed (in part) through talking to people on the forums, taking note of their ideas and attitudes that is partly my research and my facts.
As I keep explaining to you Pitt many of your own words and argument can be used to back up my theories.
But think about it, if my theories are as weak as you seem to imply they should be easily refuted and knocked down, but in fact you don’t seem able to knock them down and have to contrive a bout of pious huffiness to get out of even debating them.
Why are they so worrying to you?

**

Jesus I addressed that question in the proper thread. Some were acceptable to me and others I thought placed undue hardship on the ordinary law abiding citizen.

So I’m sure you can explain what you found acceptable and why. And what you found not and why?
You see the think was that a lot of what you did and didn’t like seemed to back up my theories.

**
Quote:
Originally Posted by Balbus
As to my ‘assertion’ what assertion are you talking about? I’ve always said that I was looking to a holistic approach and that gun regulation was just part of it.

All of this was addressed prior in another thread why are you trying to muddy this thread with your repetitive retorical nonsense.

This doesn’t answer the question? What assertion are you talking about?
To say it was ‘addressed’ when I know nothing of what you are talking about seem to be just a way of wheedling out of giving an answer.

**

Quote:
Originally Posted by Balbus
Oh man, LOL, is this still about me pointing out that having and using a condom is not like having and using a gun?

Jesus Fing christ, you are as dense as a block of lead. I think you are being deliberately moronic. That among others (seatbelt) depicts the logical conclusion between similar thought patterns in a given situation.

But they didn’t make sense, for example you contested that wearing a seatbelt and a owning a gun were the same.
That they were both there when needed.
But a seatbelt should be worn at all times in a car because it cannot be predicted in advance when it might be needed, but you said that you didn’t have your gun out ready to use at any time and that you didn’t even have it on you all the time.
That is basically saying that an occurrence would need to be predicted in advance, which you discounted.
So your idea seemed to be that at the point of a car accident the person in the car would unhook the seatbelt and lock it in place.
And that’s silly and that is why the two things guns and seatbelts are not the same.
But we have been through all that before and you still seem to say they are but just refuse to explain why.
As to the condom thing even you must see how stupid it is?

**

Quote:
Originally Posted by Balbus
You ask poeple thier opinion of a certain point yet you refuse to accept thier answer only keep asking why why why.

Another accusation but can you give an example?

Look back through your favorite thread. You asked a question and I gave you my opinion, you then asked why and so on and so on

But that is a discription of debate

Many of your answers needed clarification or raised more questions.

But don't you see that is what debate is, what you want seems to be the opposite of debate. You want to give your opinion but put limits on which questions you will or will not answer or what you will or will not explain

At the moment you are doing this by getting all huffy and refusing to answer people if they start asking you difficult questions.

**
OMFG you really do have an egotistical personality. Any other response to this is just plain silly and a waste of time.

As I’ve said ask a difficult question and you become huffy and refuse to answer

**
Quote:
Originally Posted by Balbus
But forever the optimist, I’ll ask again what ‘facts’ of yours that you are talking about refute my theories?

Unlike you I am unwilling to continually repeat myself to the same moron over and over. They have been posted enough in various threads. Go look them the fuck up.

Yes as pointed out you are unwilling to answer difficult questions.

However you do repeatedly accuse me of things that you cannot back up.

And I’ve read your posts and you don’t seem to have posted anything that comes anywhere close to refuting my theories. Oh you have claimed to several times but never seem able to back up that assertion with any evidence.

But as I say I’m forever the optimist, so I’ll ask again what ‘facts’ of yours that you are talking about refute my theories?

**

I have asked you on numerous occasions to address your comments to the forum members in general or to others specifically but you seem facinated on following me around and trying to bait me.

But my theories are addressed to the forum and things said on the forums I use to build and refine the theories. I present theories to stand or fall but so far the ones stated here haven’t been seriously dented yet.

Bullshit then why are you always addressing post directly to ME? Its like having a fucking stalker. EDIT: A quick scan of this one thread shows balbus made 23 seperate post, 12 of those directed to me personally. Thats a little over 50%.

But what is your point, you give your views I give mine, that is what debate is about and I address posts so people know whose points I’m addressing.

But it seems to me that your intention here is to use every rhetorical trick there is to get out of honest debate.

Again this just seems like fake (and rather bombastic) indignation in and effort to disguise the fact you are unable to refute what I’ve posted.
It is plain and simple trickery, if you were a little more honest you would just debate the ideas not continually make up excuse for not doing so.

Again why are my theories so worrying to you?

**

 

Pitt

I had to laugh when I read your post I mean man you do a good line in ‘righteous indignation’ and as before it pops up so conveniently, just when you want to get out of answering questions or entering into an honest debate.

I think you know you cannot refute my theories (you may even agree with them) but for some reason you would rather fake umbrage than admit it, that way you can try and claim that you could refute my theories but you are just not doing so because you are sooooooo miffed at my vulgar behaviour

Come on man this is just another trick.

In fact if anyone has grounds for being indignant it is me, you try to misrepresent what I say and make unsubstantiated accusations against me all the time.

But to me that just seem to vindicate my ideas, you seem so worried by what I’ve said that you are doing all you can to get out of discussing them and you seem to be doing all you can to try and discredit the person saying them.

I mean when something reduces people to lying and cheating to attack it rather than use rational argument then that something must have them very spooked.


**

 

White scorpion

“Does this mean that we need to reconsider ammending the Second Ammendment to go with the sign of the times, and to allow American culture to flow naturally by making it less suppressing, intimidating, and polemic? (These being the negative aspects, to a culture of a nation that also has many positives to show the world, and not an attack on the US)”

As I’ve said many times I think the whole US constitution needs re-writing, from scratch, but that’s another subject.

**

Can anything be done?

Well I think the first step would be for people to investigate whether they possibly have this attitude but to do so they would need to look at their views and what they’re based on in a rational and reasonable way.

But I’m unsure if that level of self awareness is possible just yet since many here seem at the moment to be blocking out the whole idea or refusing to debate it in a reasonable and rational way.

**

 

Well it does present simularities but strickly I guess on the defensive roll. A seat belt is only good when it saves your life but the rest of the time it is useless. A firearm could be said to have the same qualities. The seat belt too is only as usefull as the operator same as a firearm.

I think I would have said perhaps a firearm and a vehicle were more closely related that when misused could injury or kill the user and others around it. That they both can be for work, recreational, sport and even a method of saving a life. Both also when left alone do not go out on thier own and do anything, it takes outside efforts to get them to do anything.

I see (no offense) that some people on here do alot of talking and sadly it flows in circles. Alot of quotes, alot of saying other people say this and that but thus far few have supplied documented facts.

A person can easily claim that thru conversations with others that the others agree with them. You can even get polls to agree with you point of view by being sure your polling area is in favor of your ideas (i.e) Call wealthy upscale areas and they will mostly agree gun ownership is bad, call middle America and they will say gun ownership is good. This happens alot in sample polls using area and economics to prove a point. News media taking polls on such items will do just that to get the point of view they desire.

Now this here is what is deemed "LEADING" the wording is done in such a fashion that it implies becuase they dont see a certain point of view they are not rational and that one persons debate style is correct over the other yet niether other than a few inputs from both have broad facts but seem to be more he said she said and those are not able to be backed up and disputed.

This whole debate reminds me of an example giving about an event in Vietnam.

Paper 1 reported (87 killed in the village of ?? during an attack by American troops)

Paper 2 reported (21 Americans and 66 SVC were killed during a battle in the village of ??)

Now both were correct but during a time when people disliked the war one must ask who sold more papers and why? By being selective in your words you can slant your point of view and not lie.

No matter what the topic and the source of information one must look at the previous agenda of the supplier of that information.

I supplied information from CDC Center of Disease Control on cuases of deaths to support my facts. I chose CDC for the simple fact I was pretty sure they were not pro gun nor really opposed, its not thier area.

If you wish to supply a real debate look at the pro and con sites as well as try to locate facts from sites that have information for you but the information is not used other than a general statistic.

Is the American people guncrazy, I think compared to others in the world perhaps but our country was founded on rebellion, the only difference between a patriot and a traitor is if you win or loose.

 

I read it before and yes I agress but felt to cover the whole band it was better to compare to the whole car.

But yes you dont have a house alarm installed out of fear but rather prevention, you dont pay for medical insurance out of fear but again prevention, you dont take vitamins out of fear but prevention.

So if you feel a firearm might someday supply you with a means of protection it does not imply fear but rather just an ounce of prevention.

 

White Scorpion

On the subject of libertarianism there is a libertarian forum in the politics section and maybe future discussion should go on there?
http://hipforums.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=346

But here is the conclusion to the chapter on ‘anarcho-capitalism’ another term for the libertarianism ideas in the book ‘Demanding the Impossible: A History of Anarchism by Peter Marshall
http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos...7013781-2335648

A very good introduction to Anarchy and a book I’ve often recommended to people on this forum.

“As such, anarcho-capitalism overlooks the egalitarian implications of traditional individualist anarchists like Spooner and Tucker. In fact, few anarchists would accept 'anarcho-capitalists' into the anarchist camp since they do not share a concern for economic equality and social justice. Their self-interested, calculating market men would be incapable of practising voluntary co-operation and mutual aid. Anarcho-capitalists, even if they do reject the State, might therefore best be called right-wing libertarians rather than anarchists.”
(you can read the whole chapter at the thread Bringing in libertarianism http://hipforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=151086 )

Basically anarchy is about the community and helping people and libertarianism is every one for themselves and helping only yourself.

As Shame puts it “I owe you nothing, i owe government nothing, i owe my neighbor nothing.I am not responsible for the people in darfur, kosovo, france, china, n. korea, india, new orleans, new york city, boston, chicago, or anywhere else.They are responsible for their own survival, health, food, happiness, ect.”
The lefts better argument
http://www.hipforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=169214&page=8&pp=10


Shane

“Anarchism is libertarianism doofus”

Not really (see post to WS above)

And as pointed out you often come across as more of a Social Darwinist who would just give everyone a gun and let the population drop off “to what nature can sustain” as you put it.