Guncrazy USA

Nobody can deny a nation's history and culture, but to limit a culture's advacement merely on the whim of clinging on to history, in case the boogeyman appears in your homes, is not only lame, but ultimately self-destructive.

Other countries have history and culture, too; a lot more than the United States I may add.

Walk into the average Italian home. Do you think you will find a gladius anywhere?

Do Greek homes have hoplite spears in them?

Do English homes have longbows made of yew?

French homes have muskets? Or Norwegian homes double headed axes?

I think that the culture card is a bit of a lame joker to use in a game where every lame bluff has been used, and every winning hand ignored in a stubborn defiance to accept logic.

Balbus has raised many logical points. In this particular instance the undeniable truth is very simple...

Absolutely. Countries in the EEC are now taking effective measures against the threat of cancer by banning smoking in public areas. We have had an unhealthy smoking environment for a long time. Come July, in England, all smoking in public places will be banned. Totally. End of story. There won't be any, "Hey we built our culture and empire on the premise of slavery and tobacco trade." The death show is finished. There's no 'one more cigarette for the road for old time's sake'. Just light a cigarette in a bar and see what happens when you get caught.

The same can apply for guns in the US.

For a long time, this thread has been dominated by a single opinion from the US contributors (although not all, there were at least 2 voices which were totallly ignored), because most of the peace-makers in here are reluctant to argue in a debate that they know reaches very deep into what a lot of Americans really fear: not the just their government, but chaos and lawless disorder, where every political and social group fights for a piece of land.

But there is hope.

Among the fear and the propaganda hidden behind laws written centuries ago, there is vision of clarity, even if written in words designed to appease those who get a high blood pressure the minute you suggest taking their guns away. In this case, I think Veg captures the essence perfectly...

But it could be the way the US becomes one day.

The future and Will of the nation is in the hands of its people.



Protest and do it peacefully and while you still can.

 

Hahahaha, this from a person who has adopted the persona of a very bad villain who time and again adopted a policy of universal domination and subjugation. You make me laugh. Even though you're right, you're much more entertaining than your namesake.

 

Jippers Crippers! I wurkd it out!! I been lookin around the four room qwuietly the las few days n thats why my funs have not herd from me. I been dooin ditictive wurk like on TV n sheet. An Im amaized that no body spottid that you Zoomyee n that tickturd Ronanld MacDoland are the only two peepl in the four room that are usin Centinem as a qwuote for yiour sigs!!!!?!!!! Aint no doubt in my mind, specialy after wot Siane seed aboot you Zoomie n that yoo conefessed that yiou wotch Breetish TV that you are that anti American commoonist. Ama callin the sheriff boy

 

ha.

total misrepresentation. i think i summarized my position fairly well in post#700.

As i've stated before, i'm not big on labels.

an anarcho-capitalist society or a Libertarian society or even just a oligarchy as we have today is a far cry closer to freedom than a socialist dictatorship can ever hope to be.

my suggestion.

stop getting your education through left leaning sites and do some real studying of your own.

real literature, read what's out there.

have you ever really read marx?

"...to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic."

stirner?

"A race of altruists is necessarily a race of slaves. A race of free men is necessarily a race of egoists."

bakunin?

"Hence, two different methods. The Communists believe they must organise the workers' forces to take possession of the political power of the State. The Revolutionary Socialists organise with a view to the destruction, or if you prefer a politer word, the liquidation of the State. The Communists are the upholders of the principle and practice of, authority, the Revolutionary Socialists have confidence only in liberty. Both equally supporters of that science which must kill superstition and replace faith, the former would wish to impose it; the latter will exert themselves to propagate it so that groups of human beings, convinced, will organise themselves and will federate spontaneously, freely, from below upwards, by their own movement and conformably to their real interests, but never after a plan traced in advance and imposed on the "ignorant masses" by some superior intellects."

paine?

"Societ is produced by our wants amd government by our wickedness."

Nietzsche?

"The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself."

rand?

"The evil of the world is made possible by nothing but the sanction you give it"

read a book, no, better yet take a class or two.

as i've said, i'm not a member of the Libertarian Party, but i am a libertarian. I am not a member of any Anarcho-syndaclist collective, but i am an anarchist. Not a Liberal, but a follower classical liberalism. not a Pacifist, but a denouncer of force and coersion(whether for my benefit or for that of others).

I was born with free will and an independent mind, an inate sense of right and wrong, and a desire to experience the miracle/tragedy of existence on my own terms. I wish to live and die as that person as well.

You ask me, "Who are you to pull down a government if other people want that ??"

As if government was an institution i could simply ignore and choose not to particpate in.

As if the state could maintain it's existence without the use of force, coersion, slavery or lies.

They call it taxation, i call it extortion.

So i ask you, Who are these other people that are allowed to impose government on me without my consent? Who are these other people that have taken it upon themselves to monitor and supervise and regulate my life, my health, my business, my children, my marriage, my religion, my property(that being the product of my labor and therefore an extension of my being), my travels...

To create and maintain a state, force and theft is needed. all in order to accomplish what you and i could without it.

to "pull down a state" is not always an act of force, force isn't neccesary. All we must do is simply stop maintaning that state, stop using force on others and stop allowing force to be acted upon ourselves.

until then, acts of force against the state are neccesarily acts of self-defense, defense against the violence of collective slavery.

so, no, i will not give up my gun, i have the inherit right as a self-aware individual to defend my self from violence with threat of equal or greater violence.

I defend my inherit right to exist as a free individual.

btw, you mentioned that you're a european, what nationality?

I ask because i recognise the philosophical evolutionary differences between north american individualists and the european socialist "anarchists" on the other side of the pond.

I like it better over here, but then again here is home, so what would you expect.

 

Shane, I think you expressed your ideas very well there. I didn't understand all of them, but some of them made me think a few things.

If you think that you will need to protect yourself against your government, what makes you think that guns will be effective?

If anything, possession of a gun will make all of you a direct target. The fact that you are registered gun holders will mean that the state itself will be ready to take action against you.

You probably won't even see them coming.

Don't fall into the trap to think that guns will make your world safer, people.

We need to start working on getting rid of conflict, poverty, crime, and start tackling some issues that only have a limited time to resolve in order to maintain our survival.

 

come again?

 

Maybe, maybe not.

government is only one threat but it's the biggest.

i would rather have a gun and not need it than need a gun and not have one.

history shows what happens when you stop resisting or give up the means to resist, europe's ghettos taught north america some valuable lessons(or so i hope, a Clinton vs Giuliani race makes me fearful)...

"Give Me Your Children"(see Litzmannstadt Ghetto, Chaim Rumkowski)

over my dead body.

appeasment doesnt work for me.

 

we are getting off topic with this but maybe a couple more shots before we take it somewhere else maybe

The question was rhetorical, didnt need a reply I was saying that I think the logical position of libertarianism ends in stalemate in a game of chess with its opposition -> since this:

proposition 1) You say who are these people to impose government on me

proposition 2) a large section of the populace say - who are you to attempt to destroy government.

conclusion a) your libertarian wish to destroy government impedes on other peoples wish to keep it. therefore to destroy what others want to keep is fascist

conclusion b) you accept the wishes of those who would keep government and are therefore politically impotent - your words will never end in action

contrast that with European anarchists that are every week rioting across Europe and attracting ever larger numbers from a wider section of the populace. Inaction breeds impotence while action urges the spirit of freedom to fight for its life, freedom grows stronger the more oppression tries to contain it.

BTW did you realise your government is going to force the biometric ID card scheme through by November 2008? in a way that they need not use the democratic process

 

He said that he finally noticed that since Ronald and I quote Sentient in our sigs and I watch British counter-culture television and don't believe in guns, I must be a socialist just like these fucktards who have no concept of American life outside of some dumb Bruce Willis movies and want to restrict our constitutional freedoms. Which is incorrect.

 

Pitt

Once more you would rather derail than enter into any real discussion or reply to the points raised.

This is becoming incredibly sad.

**

"Your baseless accusations are tiresome and not worthy of response.

As to the seatbelt thing it has been explained dozens of times and everyone sees the connection but you."

I’ve given my opinion and the reasons for having it, you have made a lot of assertions but you don’t seem able to explain why you have them.

Then why does everyone else get the point EXCEPT you? You are either the one lying, manipulating, or trying to twist this into something it is not. Either that or you really are dumb as a post.

But what point are you talking about? And why have none of them been able to counter what I’ve said? As I’ve clearly shown you cannot even explain what you mean so is it surprising no one else can?

I repeat - I’ve given my opinion and the reasons for having it, you have made a lot of assertions but you don’t seem able to explain why you have them.

**

You made an illogical statement and I used the seatbelt example to show you the flawed logic behind such a ridiculous statement.

Again this is just assertion with nothing behind it.

Why was the statement illogical? I’ve given my reasons, you seem to think crime was a threat but you must in someway fear something to feel it a threat.

People in the US own so many guns because they live in constant fear of being attacked. That statement is based on so many flawed assumptions its pathetic. The seatbelt example uses the same logic you used to reach the conclusion. Both are rediculous only you actually believe yours has merit.

What flawed assumptions?

Come on man, I’ve given you my reasons, arguments and theories, why are you seemingly unable to counter or refute them?

All you seemingly do these days is moan and call things ‘pathetic’, you’re acting like a child whose having a tantrum because you can’t get your way.

The adult thing to do would be to ask yourself why you are seemingly unable to refute or counter my arguments and what that says about your own.

Why not enter into honest debate rather than try and derail all the time?

**

You rabbit on about it been a ‘statistical thing’ what the hell does that actually mean?

Are you really threatened but statistically not, or is the threat only statistical and not real?

It means 10% of the population will become a victim of crime during thier lives. you can either take your chances you are one of the 90% or you can assume you COULD be one of the 10%.

Victim of any and all crime including crimes where the victim is not present or are you only taking about violent crime that endangers the person involved?

This has of course been already covered before after at first talking of threat, death and the ubiquity of crime, you suddenly changed your tune when I pointed out that you seemed afraid.

You seem to change your view to suite the argument, and you never have given a reasonable explanation of why you do that.

**

So you will post all relevant sources except when you chose to lie and then you will not.

Very convenient.

No it means I will not go back through a thread with post numbering 500-600. to find one singular post I have pointed out to you dozens of times.

Again isn’t that sooooooooo convenient for you, I’m going to say something but I can’t be bothered to find out if it its true or not.

So are you going to stop lying or continue to make accusations you cannot back up?

**

 

Oh Yank thank you, you post is again great in backing up what I’ve said.

It seems to me that your views are deeply entrenched in the attitude of threat and intimidation and that you seem unable to think in any other way.

You don’t ask why things are happening you react to them with threat and intimidation, you don’t seem to be looking for real solutions just hoping to suppressing the problems and in my view adding to them.

I’ll try and explain.

**

We were talking about bullying at school –

I said - 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.

To which you replied - The injustices in the world period.

To which I replied - Again someone is backing up what I’m saying. Yanks reaction seems to be more about acceptance than about change. He seems to be accepting the threat/intimidation attitude rather than thinking of ways to counter it.

The point was you seemed to be accepting bullying

Have you gone off at a tangent or are you suggesting that bullying could be dealt with by giving every child a gun, do you think that is the sign of a healthy and better society? What about verbal abuse would it be acceptable to shoot someone that repeatedly calls you a moron, what about a wedge?

**

My idea is a means to counter it. Ask yourself would you be more willing to take something from a place with security measures or without?? I would like to believe that a person would see me as a threat far more than I would like a person to see me as a target.
So far on gun control I have offered suggestions of change but still believe that any armed person is a greater foe.

So you think you’re a target if you are not armed?

You seem to be suggesting that you believe things are so bad that if you didn’t have a gun you would be attacked and could even be attacked with one?

See what I mean about this threat/intimidation attitude and how you seem to view the world?

It is a ‘them’ against you viewpoint were guns become the ‘equaliser’ making you the ‘greater foe’.

Have you ever wondered who ‘them’ were and why they may be acting the way they are?

**

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

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.

The acceptance of the idea of the individual needing an ‘equaliser’ against a world that is threatening them and could attack or try and suppress them

Yes I do see guns as a means to simplify a situation. If a 90 year old man is faced with a 20 year old man who wishes to attack the 90 year old man in your world would you justify that a fist fight need take place?? If a man breaks into your home do you feel the need to allow him to steal what you have worked for?? Allow him to assualt your family??

So a 90 year old man is walking down the street and a 20 year old jumps out with a gun and points it at him. The 90 year old then drops his stick, unbuttons his coat unclips his holster, pulls out his gun, clicks off the safety and points it at the youngster, who obligingly has just being standing there waiting?

Nobody I know has had someone break into their home while they were in it. I know of those that have had their home robbed when they were out (including myself). But then having a gun would have been useless and possible worse if the gun itself had been stolen from the house it is likely to be passed on to criminals that might use then it, therefore escalating the problem.

But why is the young man or the house robber acting in that way?

**

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

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??

This seems to be suggesting a scale with death and crime on one side and the rest on the other.

To me this is not about seeing a problem and tackling it, it is seeing a problem and deciding you can live with it.

**

Now this is where I get to be like you.
On another post earlier in this thread and others I clearly stated what I felt were collective ideas that needed to be addressed to correct the problems. Actually enforcing laws on the books in regards to violence and guns, changing a few laws, since hate crimes are against people then attacks by teens on other teens should be considered hate crimes, teachers who ignore the actions of popular liked kids and the pleas of the unpopular assualted kid then the teacher should be immediately terminated and loose the ability to teach sent to prison for child neglect and lastly be sued, no more 10+ years to execute a murderer, no more tolerance for repeat offenders of violent crimes not petty crimes.

SO I have actually offered ideas to change not accept, you need to read a little yourself please.

Yank you excel yourself this is truly great -

This is all about using threat and intimidation to get what you want without once seeking understanding or thinking of alternative ideas.

Enforce the laws – great but what about trying to work out why people are breaking the laws in the first place? (And why are they not enforced already?)

Adding new penalties against attacks – great but why are the attacks taking place?

Tougher laws and more prison time – but the US already has the highest prison population is this the way to a better and healthier society?

Kill people quicker – to presumably intimidate people into not committing so many murders? But why are so many murders taking place?

This is all about hit, suppress, grind, it doesn’t seem like you want to understand at all and if you don’t understand I don’t think you are going to find real solutions at all.

(Maybe you should go back and read my theories and try and understand what they say)

**

I don’t claim to have presented any ‘truths’ I have just presented some ideas and theories based in part on things said here.
If you can refute these theories go ahead that is why I posted them to see if they can stand up to scrutiny that is what people do with theories

As near as I can see they have been refuted time and time again with supporting fact links as well as personal theories accumulated from other posts. It just seems when it is done instead of seeing them you choose to ignore them and instead say it was not done, perhaps Im wrong.

If they have been refuted so many times I’m sure you can give some examples? I really would like to know it would make the debate a lot more interesting than batting these constant tricks and misdirection’s.

Oh and please don’t let this be another trick.

**

For me debate it is not about winning since I don’t find viewpoints that change the way I have previously thought bad things but as exciting discoveries to be cherished.
Maybe you hold some of your view as ‘truths’ like dogmas in a religion, ideas that cannot change whatever is said or however irrational they may become, for me that is unhealthy.
To me US gun culture is just a symptom of an unhealthy attitude that if faced could change, but it seems you and others want to resist or ignore my theories about that.
So we get trick to get out of having an honest debate.

Oh how can I not hold onto the truth?

Its far greater than beliefs or theories. I would rather trust a fact than somebodies belief. Fact is a firearm has the ability to stop a person this is the reason why law enforcement carry them. Is it rational to believe you could stop 2 men armed with an AK47 and body armor comming out of a bank in California with nothing but your hands?? Or is it more rational to believe you could stop those men if you had equal fire power. Now before you try to say "see your afraid" No its an example based on FACTS as it did happen.

And the best way of shooting someone that is armed (or who is a better shot) is to shot them in the back and a sniper can kill you from half a mile away. In both cases the victim’s gun isn’t much use (these things also happen)

The thing is that ‘truth’ is often subjective, a creationist ‘s ‘truth’ is going to be different from an evolutionist’s. And a creationist bases their view on the ‘facts’ written in the Bible.

Belief in certain facts and certain truth is often based simply on the belief that they are true and a fact.

You put your faith in guns because you feel that ‘equalises’ or makes you more potent than others. But is that actually dealing with the problems within your society or just hoping it will keep them in check?

**

It seems under your fear factor belief that no one can go to the doctor becuase they only go out of fear, that they cant take any medications becuase it would be done so out of fear, that they cant have religions becuase they have them out of fear, that they cant wear seat belts becuase they do so out of fear, that they cant go to work becuase they work out of fear.

You really need to understand that fear/ prevention/ belief/ and simple choice are sometimes closely related but that in the decision fear is not actually what the person is thinking. I am sure a woman does not go to the gynocologist out of fear but rather a need to prevent possible issues and detect issues. Do you believe they mount up them stirrups out of fear?? Not likely.

My theory is that there is a general attitude among many Americans that accepts threat of violence, intimidation and suppression as legitimate means of societal control and this mindset gets in the way of them actually working toward solutions to their social and political problems.

I don’t mention a ‘fear factor’.

What has going to a doctor, taking medication or having a religion got to do with my stated theories?

If this is about the seatbelt argument your examples still don’t make sense.

“I would like to believe that a person would see me as a threat far more than I would like a person to see me as a target”

Think of the things been mentioned as reasons for gun ownership, fear of government suppression, home invasion by one person a gang or the government, of family members been attacked, raped or killed, of carjackers, gang bangers and robbers with AK 45’s, its all about been the target of wilful and malicious attacks.

I have a healthy respect for the road and the threats it holds I know that it is possible to be in an accident through no fault of the driver or due to a momentary lapse of judgement, for these reasons I use a seatbelt. But I don’t actually think that I’ll be the target of a wilful and malicious attack. It is the same with disease or illness people don’t believe they are the wilful and malicious target of attack.

And we often work together as a community to try and put in place laws, regulations and procedures to try and limit car accidents or heath risks. We use or should use a holistic approach to such problems. And in my view those laws regulations and procedures often change and adapt as circumstances charge or new problems are found.

I don’t know about the US but in the UK if an accident hotspot is noted, officials try to work out why the accidents are taking place and then take measures to improve things. It is the same with health risks if people are suffering from an illness, doctors and scientists often try to find out what is causing it then recommend measures to lessen or eradicate the harm.

The problem as I see it is that the attitude of threat/intimidation/suppression doesn’t lend itself very well to asking why or trying to discover causes it just reacts with threat, intimidation and suppression.


**

 

Balbus, lol your very wonderful at taking bits and pieces of what is said and going out o your way to attempt to change its meaning but the plot is so transparent that anyone and everyone has seen thru it.


As this has been discussed and you seem to go out of your way to drop a word here and there ad interpet it your own way instead of how it is meant I shall just let you have it.

I live in complete fear yup scared I am. good grief!

I see by your lack of posting in the solution thread you have no desire to offer a solution but rather just enjoy twisting the truth, hmm Penn and Teller offer a reply to your concerns......

 

Oh Yank as I feared you turn out to be just another trickster with no intention of entering into honest debate.

You said of my theories –

As near as I can see they have been refuted time and time again with supporting fact links as well as personal theories accumulated from other posts. It just seems when it is done instead of seeing them you choose to ignore them and instead say it was not done, perhaps Im wrong.

I asked -

If they have been refuted so many times I’m sure you can give some examples? I really would like to know it would make the debate a lot more interesting than batting these constant tricks and misdirection’s.
(And I added the plea) And please don’t let this be another trick.

But it turns out can’t find even one, another liar spreading more lies.

**

As to solutions If you had actual read may posts rather than just wishing to play tricks and lie you would have realise that I’ve put many forward but as i've tried to point out I don't think you are really that intrested in seeking understanding or real solutions.

**

 

Balbus, yank'n'burn, and Dirk Pitt are the same person

 

this is just absurd bullshit now to keep this thread on top

bye bye guncrazy USA long live the global anticapitalists

give up your guns for peaceful revolution - wahahahahahaha

Europe peaceful - my arse !!!! its Europe thats going up in flames so good can overcome corruption

your guns make that impossible in the usa

 

Okay source of facts, The Swiss have the right attitude and thier crime rates or lack of prove it, we now have a model to follow...

http://pages.prodigy.net/vanhooser/the_swiss_and_their_guns.htm

http://www.crimereduction.gov.uk/statistics/statistics35.htm

http://www.theblessingsofliberty.com/articles/article11.html

http://www.populistamerica.com/self_defense_in_switzerland

http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1034.html

 

That is why I love to supply links so I can prove my facts I have used.

 

DP the facts and figures I got for Switzerland where from The Independent, one of the reliable UK newspapers, which published a report that Switzerland has the second highest population percentage in deaths from gun-related crime. This in turn has caused enough concern amongst its citizens to consider placing a gun ban. My point is that if the Swiss are ready to take action, then why not the Americans?

 

Why not america, Because it's written in a law meant to defend themselfs against Brittish (we won't invade anytime soon).

So why do they still have guns? Protection from forgein forces....

Nobody's gonna invade America, People will attack America, not invade....

 

Other countries have armies to defend their nation, but, I almost forgot, the US Army is tied up with other affairs at the moment to worry about such things as protecting the nation.

Seriously, if you all have guns to defend your country, then why do you waste billions on defense? Why not have do away with the annual defense budget and just rely on your own arms?