[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
What right does someone from an impoverished failed narco-state have to tell us how to run our business up here? Mexicans are all voting with their feet to come up here and enjoy our wonderful system. Maybe that should clue you in that it’s better. [/quote]
Actually I am not from an impoverished failed narco-state, I chose to move here (also had the option to move to the States but chose Mexico because I prefer it here)
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
I have already mentioned shooting for fun in a controlled environment. Please no straw man arguments.[/quote]
“A sidearm is there to shoot people.” - you
I consider my home a controlled environment. Are you saying that it isn’t?
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
In the Anarchist state the control goes to the powerful, who protects the weak? Or do you just not care about them in a survival of the fittest type response?
Maybe instead of Average I should have said Stereotypical. And we go back to the idea that throwing guns into a bad aggressive situation, in my opinion, does not lower the level of aggression. It gets people shot.
So we should take guns away from cops, because that only makes violence more likely? The cops would be safer disarmed?
Actually yes, we should. In the UK, there are armed units that are highly trained and brought in to situations where they are needed. Outside of that the police do not carry guns.
This system for the most part works well (unless you are a Brazillian attempting to ride the tube.)[/quote]
So guns are useful in bad situations when used by the right people.
Guns are good for the protection of the president, is my family not entitled to the same protection?
Maybe you aren’t familiar with all the different scenarios that can play out with private citizens:
My parents live in Alabam out in the middle of nowhere. There driveway is about a quarter of a mile long going back into the woods. One night they had pickup roll up their driveway and park in front of their house. My dad grabbed his pistol and went to see who it was. It turned out to be a guy looking for his dog (apparently a 3000$ microchipped hunting dog).
My point is if it had been someone ill-intentioned there isn’t a neighbor to hear them scream.
On the same token my dad volunteers at the fire department. There wouldn’t be one without the volunteers.
Citizens cannot always rely on the government for their rights and services some have to be provided and enforced by the individual.
You are saying that my dad should be allowed to own his gun because there are some people 100 miles away in an inner city somewhere that might be tempted to use one improperly when they get drunk and angry.
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
In the Anarchist state the control goes to the powerful, who protects the weak? Or do you just not care about them in a survival of the fittest type response?[/quote]
No. It goes to those that serve society. Those that take power versus serve society must use coercive means to do so. In an anarchist society the market rules – whether it is the market of ideas or the market of goods and services.
Whether it is the powerful – i.e, the elite – that espouse ideas or build productive empires is irrelevant. The elite always excel at their chosen profession – whether scientist or killer – hence they can even be called elite.
Make no mistake, anarchy is not an Utopian ideal nor am I implying better circumstances would exist than exist now. I merely am trying to state that where there is a need, the means to meet that need, and no coercive force to compel otherwise, ends will be met.
Coerciveness and violence will also be dealt with as it has always been no matter the age or circumstance. When oppression from a violent source becomes too great it will be met with opposition – successfully or otherwise.
This is nature regardless of the existence of a formal State or in anarchistic society. That is to say that the elite do and always will have power and there is no exception to this. This is a universal truth.
Are we better off letting the market solve the problem of coercion and violent oppression – i.e, anarchy – or are we better off with a formally organized state doing so?
Heck, I am such a libertarian I will let you decide for yourself, just don’t come to me insisting my family and I live as you decide.
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
dhickey, I agree with a lot of what you are typing (see my comments about anarchy that I was probably typing at the same time as you)
I have no problem with people having a hunting rifle kept in the correct safe conditions. (I think the UK gun laws have gone totally overboard.)
This is totally different to being able to carry a handgun in a holster to a family Christmas party.
[/quote]
How? The killer could have shot him with a rifle.
Wrong. Ever went hiking where large bears or cats live? Ever hunted a bear with a bow an arrow? What about protecting one’s self from a larger violent criminal?
It shows that making any weapon illegal will only stop law-abiding people from aquiring them, not those that violate law abiding people. I didn’t think it was that tough to understand.
why stop there? How about everyone caught with ruffies gets charged with rape? How about anyone caught with chlorophorm gets charged with kidnapping? How about every car that drives by a hooker gets pulled over and charged with solicitation? How about charging anyone walking into a bar with their car keys with DUI?
yeah, pot and crack are real expensive.
it sure has. more risk that a coke head breaking into my house harms my familiy. That coke head certainly gets a benefit. Less risk that I am able to protect my self.
Did anyone see the SNL a few years back with Shaq? My wife and I were watching a repeat of a skit where Shaq is playing a teenage boy who comes home late and his dad who is played by Tracy Morgan takes him over his knee and spanks him.
The joke of the skit was how Shaq dwarfed a normal-sized Tracy Morgan. I looked at my wife after the skit was over and said, “That’s why we carry pistols.”
Trust me buddy, no amount of Squats, milk, and MMA is going to save my ass if I met him pissed in a dark alley. Shit, I’m not entirely sure my Beretta is saving my ass there.
mike
[quote]dhickey wrote:
Then why don’t we see evidense of this in areas that might as well be lawless?[/quote]
Because coercion is a useful means to get stuff and the those that are oppressed by it have no means to put it down.
Also, in those areas and those instances where it is put down those that put it down often become the new oppressors. There are no notions of liberal ideals in those countries. Liberty is a learned concept just like the notion of rule and law are.
[quote]FormerlyTexasGuy wrote:
Most gun owners have hunting weapons that fire one shot at a time, would be next to impossible to hide in public and require a high level of accuracy.
[/quote]
And I have stated that I don’t see a problem with the controlled sale and ownership of this type of weapon.
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
FormerlyTexasGuy wrote:
Most gun owners have hunting weapons that fire one shot at a time, would be next to impossible to hide in public and require a high level of accuracy.
And I have stated that I don’t see a problem with the controlled sale and ownership of this type of weapon.[/quote]
You don’t see any value in guns for protection?
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
FormerlyTexasGuy wrote:
Most gun owners have hunting weapons that fire one shot at a time, would be next to impossible to hide in public and require a high level of accuracy.
And I have stated that I don’t see a problem with the controlled sale and ownership of this type of weapon.[/quote]
Good luck trying to draw the line. they are all leathal.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
So guns are useful in bad situations when used by the right people.
Guns are good for the protection of the president, is my family not entitled to the same protection?
[/quote]
Tell you what, when there are as many people who want to kill your family as there are that want to kill the US president then we can talk about getting you some highly trained armed guards.
That however has nothing to do with the ability to buy a firearm over the counter with no proof that you are able to own and use it responsibly
Seriously, the US must be a really dangerous place to live, from the responses that I see on these threads you must each be repelling home invasions and rape attempts on a daily basis.
Perhaps you should think about moving to downtown Baghdad where it is safer.
I agree in general principal
[quote]
You are saying that my dad should be allowed to own his gun because there are some people 100 miles away in an inner city somewhere that might be tempted to use one improperly when they get drunk and angry.[/quote]
Currently a person can go to a store, buy a gun, buy ammo, load the ammo into the gun walk up to your Dad’s front door and shoot him. They haven’t commited a crime until they pull the trigger. Personally I would want the check point a little earlier in the chain of events.
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
If you have a drunk angry person, is it a better or worse situation if they are in a car?[/quote]
Great point, we better ban cars.
But just the fast ones that can hurt people.
Or keep them all on racetracks, maybe.
You seem like a reasonable guy, Blue, but this fear of guns is irrational. Any tool can be abused, and can make it easier to hurt or kill someone. The fact that some people are willing to abuse a tool in such a manner does not automatically mean everyone else should be denied the use of that tool.
I’m not afraid of guns. I am afraid of people who think I can’t be trusted to carry one, though.
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
I can’t get to that link through my work firewall so I will have to wait till I get home to know quite how inventive your insult was. Possibly it is you that doesn’t have true English as a native language given the way your country regularly bastardises the language in an ill informed attempt to simplify it for it’s denizens.[/quote]
For someone who is on the rag about others not using logical fallacies - you sure don’t seem to have a problem creating your own straw men to wage war against.
But hey - you haven’t gotten anything correct yet, so I doubt calling attention to your hypocrisy will do much good.
Yet another baseless assertion made by you. DO you have proof of these NRA members who were forced to join.
A police state is far more likely with an armed government and an unarmed populace. But, one would need a ounce of fucking common sense to realize this.
You were the one who brought up the notion of protecting the under privileged. You said so right here:
Your average NRA member is not affected by the terrible problems that easy access to guns cause in [u]underprivilaged communities in the US[/u] and what’s more, they couldn’t care less.
Perhaps you should refer to your own straw man comments yourself. You created the bullshit. Don’t pull out the kleenex when some one wants clarification on what you say.
How about you figure out what the under privileged has to do with this discussion and address that before presuming to give me orders about what I should and shouldn’t address.
And btw - it’s unsuccessfully since you seem to be all into being the spelling czar.
If you have a drunk angry person, is it a better or worse situation if they have a gun on them?[/quote]
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
So guns are useful in bad situations when used by the right people.
Guns are good for the protection of the president, is my family not entitled to the same protection?
Tell you what, when there are as many people who want to kill your family as there are that want to kill the US president then we can talk about getting you some highly trained armed guards.
That however has nothing to do with the ability to buy a firearm over the counter with no proof that you are able to own and use it responsibly
Maybe you aren’t familiar with all the different scenarios that can play out with private citizens:
My parents live in Alabam out in the middle of nowhere. There driveway is about a quarter of a mile long going back into the woods. One night they had pickup roll up their driveway and park in front of their house. My dad grabbed his pistol and went to see who it was. It turned out to be a guy looking for his dog (apparently a 3000$ microchipped hunting dog).
My point is if it had been someone ill-intentioned there isn’t a neighbor to hear them scream.
Seriously, the US must be a really dangerous place to live, from the responses that I see on these threads you must each be repelling home invasions and rape attempts on a daily basis.
Perhaps you should think about moving to downtown Baghdad where it is safer.
On the same token my dad volunteers at the fire department. There wouldn’t be one without the volunteers.
Citizens cannot always rely on the government for their rights and services some have to be provided and enforced by the individual.
I agree in general principal
You are saying that my dad should be allowed to own his gun because there are some people 100 miles away in an inner city somewhere that might be tempted to use one improperly when they get drunk and angry.
Currently a person can go to a store, buy a gun, buy ammo, load the ammo into the gun walk up to your Dad’s front door and shoot him. They haven’t commited a crime until they pull the trigger. Personally I would want the check point a little earlier in the chain of events.[/quote]
So, if my parents don’t get raped/murdered often, they shouldn’t worry about it? It kind of only takes once.
If my dad didn’t own a gun, you could bypass the gun store and just pick up a stick in the front yard before you kicked in his door.
Who are you to decide what is the threat level of my family and how best to protect them?
dhickey,
the drugs and guns arguments are totally seperate. I cannot use pot to kill you.
Also, the banning of certain drugs is totally arbitrary and the criminalisation of people who are afflicted with an addiction is plainly stupid.
Your arguments about charging people walking into a bar with DUI are obviously stupid, lets take it the other way, if someone wants to come into the US with a suitcase dirty bomb, we should let them. We don’t know for sure that they are going to carry out a terrorist attack, maybe they just have a real interest in ordinance or are going extreme duck hunting…
Being from Mexico - you would think you would keep your nose in your own affairs.
How many people have been murdered in Cd. Juarez, and other Border towns in 2008? Like 1500 or so, right?
And Mexico has gun laws prohibiting the private ownership of “military weapons”.
Could your hypocrisy in this matter possibly be any greater?
Thanks for playing. Now run on back to the MMA forum. You display a far greater aptitude for the UFC than you do about US gun issues.
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
dhickey,
the drugs and guns arguments are totally seperate. I cannot use pot to kill you.
Also, the banning of certain drugs is totally arbitrary and the criminalisation of people who are afflicted with an addiction is plainly stupid.
Your arguments about charging people walking into a bar with DUI are obviously stupid, lets take it the other way, if someone wants to come into the US with a suitcase dirty bomb, we should let them. We don’t know for sure that they are going to carry out a terrorist attack, maybe they just have a real interest in ordinance or are going extreme duck hunting… [/quote]
You claim his analogy is stupid while comparing a radioctive bomb to guns.
Drugs in general cause people to do irresponsible things including actions that lead to the death of others. Alcohol “Made” the guy violent, why not vilify alcohol in the situation? Alcohol kills lots of people (far more than irresponsible gun use).
It also doesn’t have any societal or materially personal benefits. If it hadn’t been there It would be more likely that there were no violence at all, much less someone dying. Why aren’t you arguing against alcohol, it seems more logical to me than the gun.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
I can’t get to that link through my work firewall so I will have to wait till I get home to know quite how inventive your insult was. Possibly it is you that doesn’t have true English as a native language given the way your country regularly bastardises the language in an ill informed attempt to simplify it for it’s denizens.
For someone who is on the rag about others not using logical fallacies - you sure don’t seem to have a problem creating your own straw men to wage war against.
But hey - you haven’t gotten anything correct yet, so I doubt calling attention to your hypocrisy will do much good.
Of course there are NRA members who don’t own firearms, a fair number have been scared into joining, worried that this is the first battle on a march into a police state. Exactly the point that I was making.
Yet another baseless assertion made by you. DO you have proof of these NRA members who were forced to join.
A police state is far more likely with an armed government and an unarmed populace. But, one would need a ounce of fucking common sense to realize this.
I never implied that Justin Eilers was underprivileged or that gun violence was unique to the poor, I would refer you to my straw man comments.
You were the one who brought up the notion of protecting the under privileged. You said so right here:
Your average NRA member is not affected by the terrible problems that easy access to guns cause in [u]underprivilaged communities in the US[/u] and what’s more, they couldn’t care less.
Perhaps you should refer to your own straw man comments yourself. You created the bullshit. Don’t pull out the kleenex when some one wants clarification on what you say.
Now please try and address the points I made, not the ones that you have unsuccesfully tried to infer.
How about you figure out what the under privileged has to do with this discussion and address that before presuming to give me orders about what I should and shouldn’t address.
And btw - it’s unsuccessfully since you seem to be all into being the spelling czar.
If you have a drunk angry person, is it a better or worse situation if they have a gun on them?
[/quote]
Seriously, I cannot actually understand what is the point of the argument that you are trying to make, it seems like you are saying that if more people carried guns then there would be less gun violence, if that is not what you are saying, please do correct me.
I didn’t say that the NRA members were forced to join, however I have seen propaganda aimed at telling people that if they do not support the gun lobby it will be their interest that is next to be restricted. All of the jumping up and down about the second amendment (something you have already done twice) is part of this.
I in no way related the underprivileged point to the Justin Eilers case. I was trying to point out that your Texan cowboy wannabe screaming about having to take his gun out of his cold dead hand is probably not really thinking about the impact of easy access to guns on inner city communities where people are being shot with originally legally purchased guns at a pretty alarming rate.
I am no spelling Czar (my spelling is pretty bad when I don?t have spell check switched on as you can see) I seriously wanted to know what you were calling me as coothless is a word that I hadn?t heard before and when I checked it in dictionaries I couldn’t find it.
I think you have personally insulted me more times than I care to take on this thread. I think it may be time to start pulling out the mexican jokes.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Being from Mexico - you would think you would keep your nose in your own affairs.
How many people have been murdered in Cd. Juarez, and other Border towns in 2008? Like 1500 or so, right?
And Mexico has gun laws prohibiting the private ownership of “military weapons”.
Could your hypocrisy in this matter possibly be any greater?
Thanks for playing. Now run on back to the MMA forum. You display a far greater aptitude for the UFC than you do about US gun issues. [/quote]
Just for the record, I am not from Mexico, I just live here. Guns are certainly an issue here as evidenced by shootouts between drug gangs and police here in Leon on a bit too regular a basis for my liking over the last couple of months.
At least here in Mexico, if the police stop you and you are carrying a gun, unless you have a licence to carry (which you can apply for in certain situations) then you are a criminal. This makes it easier for the police to do their job.
You know what though, even though I live in a supposedly violent country and I don’t have a gun, I sleep comfortably and safely in my bed every night.