[Toilet & Bowels]

Originally Posted by gmku

They have since the beginning. We're founded in violence.

what countries aren't?

[gmku]

I don't know but I do know there is no country for old men.

[gmku]

I forgot a funny part about the DMV incident: So I go into the little office where I pay the receipt for property taxes, and there's this sign that says they don't take credit OR debit cards. I probably haven't written a real check in a year, but now I'm thinking I'll have to go home to get out my old check book. Yes, the woman says smiling, we take checks. But I get outside and think, hey, I'll just get cash. That's as good as money, right?

I go to an ATM, get the cash, go back to the office, and the woman smiles and says, "Welcome back!" She's nice, so I say "Hi--you do take cash right?"

She waits a beat, then: "Oh, no, sir. We only take cards here."

I'm like, what. "You take cards here. But I was just here and you said you don't take cards, so I went out and..."

And she cracks up. They was messing with me man! They got me good, too.

[marleypumpkin]

Originally Posted by Toilet & Bowels

obviously, the answer to a bit of trouble with the police is to start a gun battle with them

These were corrupt cops in street close, so this has nothing to do w/ taking on a police force. It just an example of who are suppose to protect & serve us, w/ guns by the way, are using them in the exact opposite intent purpose. Hence, people should have the right to own guns. Look, my translation of the 2nd Amendment is this, you have the right to form a militia of individuals who choose to pick up arms & fight for a cause, so if the militia consists of American individuals, should they not have the right to individually own a firearm?

[Glice]

Originally Posted by marleypumpkin

...should they not have the right to individually own a firearm?

This might be an over-simplification, but firearms are pretty dangerous, and aside from their use in sport (you'll note that it's fucking difficult to kill someone with the sort of 'knives' they use in fencing) they don't really serve much purpose other than to stick cunting great holes in things - those things potentially including the category 'people'. There's a strong case for the state needing them when the people, some people, 'overshoot' [ha] their mark [double ha] and step out of line. I think it's a pretty unstable democracy that feels the need to amend its constitution with the aim of potentially preparing its people for bloody revolutions.

[pbradley]

If you honestly think a militia of individuals with even the most powerful weapons on the legal market can stand a chance against the United States military industrial complex, you're a fucking idiot. But I know gun rights advocates don't honestly believe that. Just talk to appeal to libertarian notions in liberals' heads.

The only reasoning for gun ownership aside from hunting is circular. Buy guns to protect your self from people that buy guns to protect themselves from people that, etc.

Originally Posted by pbradley

If you honestly think a militia of individuals with even the most powerful weapons on the legal market can stand a chance against the United States military industrial complex, you're a fucking idiot

So how did the USA get to be a democracy, then? I suppose that instead of a 'militia of individuals' that rebelled against the order of things and consequently lead to the evolvement of a different way of organising society in a certain way, you simply had a handful of people going ''Yawn, i'm bored with this shit, let's change it to something else instead, shall we?''.

Also, a quick note just to remind you that the States are fastly becoming less and less the only country being able to throw their own weight around like it was possible to do before. Just so you know.

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

Originally Posted by marleypumpkin

Hence the one we have in place today. Remember, Nazi's passed anti-gun laws to disarm the people, & we all know how that turned out.

yeah, we pardoned all of their high ranking officials and scientists as bribery to come work for america and build up our own authoritarian police state. thats why police dogs speak german!

 

 

Originally Posted by gmku

Because most Americans have been brainwashed to fear everything and everybody. The gun argument is based on fear.

true:

"Why are you affraid, oh scant of faith?" Jesus Christ

[marleypumpkin]

Originally Posted by SuchFriendsAreDangerous

yeah, we pardoned all of their high ranking officials and scientists as bribery to come work for america and build up our own authoritarian police state. thats why police dogs speak german!

 

 

Yes, & recruited their highest eugenicists. Which for those who don't know is the science of creating a so-called, "perfect race". Which means exterminating 80% of the current population.

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

Originally Posted by marleypumpkin

Yes, & recruited their highest eugenicists. Which for those who don't know is the science of creating a so-called, "perfect race". Which means exterminating 80% of the current population.

yes, but my friend, you can not shoot yr way out of this one! these duppies are bigger then bullets,

"For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.."

[marleypumpkin]

Originally Posted by SuchFriendsAreDangerous

yes, but my friend, you can not shoot yr way out of this one! these duppies are bigger then bullets,

"For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.."

Yr wisdom does shine on this one SuchFriends. But, these duppies as you put it, will not sit at a table & speak to generally well meaning individuals who are simply asking for what was promised them.

I just feel each person has different circumstances in life that dictates different decisions in any aspect of life. So, when it comes down to it, whatever a person chooses should be his & his decision alone to make. You don't want a gun, that's A okay. If you do, you should be allowed.

[pbradley]

Originally Posted by sarramkrop

So how did the USA get to be a democracy, then? I suppose that instead of a 'militia of individuals' that rebelled against the order of things and consequently lead to the evolvement of a different way of organising society in a certain way, you simply had a handful of people going ''Yawn, i'm bored with this shit, let's change it to something else instead, shall we?''.

The Constitution was written in a time with the nation was small enough and the weapons primitive enough that one man, with a gun, could do very little damage alone while a militia of the majority could overthrow a corrupt government.

And then a little thing called World War I came along with the machine gun. And then eventually the Cold War with the hyper development of the military.

All the second amendment provides now is a semi-reasonable excuse for the paranoid like marleypumpkin to shoot up his local post office with an assault rifle.

[marleypumpkin]

Originally Posted by pbradley

The Constitution was written in a time with the nation was small enough and the weapons primitive enough that one man, with a gun, could do very little damage alone while a militia of the majority could overthrow a corrupt government.

And then a little thing called World War I came along with the machine gun. And then eventually the Cold War with the hyper development of the military.

All the second amendment provides now is a semi-reasonable excuse your the paranoid like marleypumpkin to shoot up his local post office with an assault rifle.

I strongly believe in civil disobedience, I don't encourage shooting rampages. You'll see what my argument is being based around if you review what I am saying, I am basically defending a person's right to choose for themselves to own a gun or not. Forgot about guns for a moment, let's talk about medical marijuana. I feel it's the right of ANY individual who has a terminal illnesss to use ANY form of medicine that brings them relief. I simply am defending the choice of people, rather than policies set by higher ups for the rest of the majority.

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by pbradley

The Constitution was written in a time with the nation was small enough and the weapons primitive enough that one man, with a gun, could do very little damage alone while a militia of the majority could overthrow a corrupt government.

And then a little thing called World War I came along with the machine gun. And then eventually the Cold War with the hyper development of the military.

All the second amendment provides now is a semi-reasonable excuse for the paranoid like marleypumpkin to shoot up his local post office with an assault rifle.

haaa haa haaaaaaaaaaaa haeeeeeeeeeeeee

oh this one is my favorite of the day.

--

the fucking reputation. is stuck. please consider it given.

[racehorse]

But if it is as MarleyPumpkins says that people have been brainwashed, how can you trust this brainwashed populace to dispose of that which is brainwashing them? It's illogical. Clearly, then, guns are not the answer here. What is the answer is more difficult. I mean, when was the last time that anybody used a gun for a worthy cause, or a constitutional cause? Citing the 2nd Amendment for this problem is pretty delusional, due to, as mentioned above, the progressions in industrial weaponry, the industrial revolution etc. It's clearly healthier to steer away from an out-dated ideology and take the pragmatic solution by looking at the people killed by guns on the streets of America everyday, and act based on that. Don't act on a logically flawed concept that the "brainwashed" masses will suddenly rise up against their brainwashers...

[!@#$%!]

the hutus and the tutsis used machetes to massacre each other.

power to the people.

well no, not really no, hm, but the mentality in a large part of the united states is that you don't expect the government to provide for your needs-- you provide for yourself.

this is something that europeans and people in large american cities have a hard time wrapping their brains around-- that a lot of the country still has the "pioneer mentality"-- people who want guns, large trucks, no taxes, cheap gasoline, and their own private suburban tract. of course this is all based on a number of convenient fictions, but that's how it goes.

[pbradley]

Originally Posted by marleypumpkin

I strongly believe in civil disobedience, I don't encourage shooting rampages. You'll see what my argument is being based around if you review what I am saying, I am basically defending a person's right to choose for themselves to own a gun or not. Forgot about guns for a moment, let's talk about medical marijuana. I feel it's the right of ANY individual who has a terminal illnesss to use ANY form of medicine that brings them relief. I simply am defending the choice of people, rather than policies set by higher ups for the rest of the majority.

Your relation to the choice of carrying a firearm to the choice of using marijuana is completely misguided. The choice of buying a gun is both caused by and continues a culture of fear. An armed populace is more comparable to Cold War politics than it is to a Deadhead concert. No, I don't believe the anyone has the right to choose to inspire fear in others in exchange for personal peace of mind.

[acousticrock87]

There are things people can't have the right to choose, and there are things people must have the right to choose whether it's legal or not. People must not have the right to murder, and people must have a right to speak freely. (Not all governments allow free speech, but I still think it's a pretty widely accepted "must".)

But you can't base legalization on the idea that people must be able to choose everything. There are fucked up, ignorant, and careless people out there that need to stay in check (i.e. criminals, for one). Choice has to be monitered to some extent so that everyone's more important freedoms are protected from the people who can't handle it properly.

The problem is in where the line is drawn. Guns are a tough area, because there are strong negatives to legalization and criminalization. I think they should be legal, but I can't base it on "choice".

[marleypumpkin]

Originally Posted by acousticrock87

There are things people can't have the right to choose, and there are things people must have the right to choose whether it's legal or not. People must not have the right to murder, and people must have a right to speak freely. (Not all governments allow free speech, but I still think it's a pretty widely accepted "must".)

But you can't base legalization on the idea that people must be able to choose everything. There are fucked up, ignorant, and careless people out there that need to stay in check (i.e. criminals, for one). Choice has to be monitered to some extent so that everyone's more important fredoms are protected from the people who can't handle it properly.

The problem is in where the line is drawn. Guns are a tough area, because there are strong negatives to legalization and criminalization. I think they should be legal, but I can't base it on "choice".

I do agree that regulation & control is a much better choice than prohibition. If that's of any worth.

[pbradley]

Regulation and control can only give guns to people that can potentially become criminals. Owning a gun can only increase the chance of crime or accidental crime. There aren't two human species; Homo Criminalus and Homo Lawfules.