SRL Archive - Discussions & Debates

Discuss.

rofl, ;)
wanted to take this out of the God one rofl!

:P.

Not land of free. Especially with Obama in there, things are going to be sociallized(if he actually does something lol). There are way too many regulatory organizations… it has even been called the fourth branch of government(the regulatory branch).

Read here for more libertarian views of the US. Harry Goslin is my College History teacher, great guy.
Click here.

Ok here we start, i think that USA is not land of the freedom and so on, i think USA is land of smart people but without their own thoughts ( of course there is some people ) but mostly they are pretty stupid.. Some questions like, What is Europa? They will answer " Eruopa, what's that ? I thought USA is the whole world.. If you get my point :)

~Home

From: mormonman
Not land of free. Especially with Obama in there, things are going to be sociallized(if he actually does something lol). There are way too many regulatory organizations… it has even been called the fourth branch of government(the regulatory branch).

Read here for more libertarian views of the US. Harry Goslin is my College History teacher, great guy.
Click here.

So your saying the Libertarian views are right? So.. your liberal?


Home, I totally agree, aswell.

liberal is not libertarian… not exactly.
never said they were right either. you just said to discuss it … so i added my input.

From: mormonman
liberal is not libertarian… not exactly.
never said they were right either. you just said to discuss it … so i added my input.

this was more of a pisstake thread xD

I dont understand how the US congress system works. I suppose I shall have to read up on it. :norris:

Don't guys make this as a FlameWars, OK ? This is a place where people gives their own inputs, and i think all of us should respect them as we respect our own thoughts :)

~Home

From: Torrent of Flame
this was more of a pisstake thread xD

I dont understand how the US congress system works. I suppose I shall have to read up on it. :norris:

It will make your mind hurt if you do.

As long as we have two main parties that want to control people's lives (liberals want to control money, and conservatives want to control social aspects [abortion, gay marriage, etc.]) we will never be the land of the free.
Unless all government power is stripped, except the essentials (court system, police, and jails), we will be enslaved to them. Taxes need to be removed and replaced with a simple, optional* system; abortion, gay marriage, and drugs need to be legalized, and the constitution needs to be upheld in all cases, so we don't get anymore Patriot Acts. Until that happens, we're not even close to being the "land of the free".

*People won't have to pay taxes, but they only receive taxpayer benefits (namely police protection and possibly fire protection [if that isn't privatized]) if they do

Libertarian party forthewin <3

EDIT: I forgot to mention, all social programs need to be removed also. Men aren't entitled to other men's money just because they exist.
Also, gun restrictions and things like that need to be removed.

Patriot Act is f-in retarded… pretty much gives president power to do anything to anybody.

From: mormonman
Not land of free. Especially with Obama in there, things are going to be sociallized(if he actually does something lol). There are way too many regulatory organizations… it has even been called the fourth branch of government(the regulatory branch).

Read here for more libertarian views of the US. Harry Goslin is my College History teacher, great guy.
Click here.

Your definition of free doesn't really equal mine…
I think the right on abortion is definitely a freedom that everyone should be granted.
So is the right to say whatever I want. I also think that everyone should have to freedom to 'use' what they want. (EG: Drugs, Food).
I think I also read somewhere that some states are against gays, or in particular gay marriage. (EG: Utah, Texas …)Yachoman sure wouldn't like this. ;)
I don't call that freedom.

EDIT: And I think guns should be banned. I wouldn't feel safe in America.

From: Wizzup?
Your definition of free doesn't really equal mine…
I think the right on abortion is definitely a freedom that everyone should be granted.
So is the right to say whatever I want. I also think that everyone should have to freedom to 'use' what they want. (EG: Drugs, Food).
I think I also read somewhere that some states are against gays, or in particular gay marriage. (EG: Utah, Texas …)Yachoman sure wouldn't like this. ;)
I don't call that freedom.

i agree completely… thats why i have libertarian views :o

I think freedom is just a imaginary label they put on to make US look more attracting to people from other parts of the world. Really it is not freedom, especially when you walk down the streets or talk on the phone even, some may not know but really, you have no privacy, you are being watched, you are being listened to, you have no freedom or right to talk without realizing that your words and your actions have/might be looked at people behind phones or even t.v screens. In some parts of the US there are cameras located in every corner of the street, so you are under surveillance basically everytime you walk out your house, how is this being free? You are just another average puppet for the government, and if not the government you are definetly just another puppet for the Illumaniti, Free Masons.. And to talk about other types of freedoms, you are also told what to do and restricted to only so much of what can be done in the country. Its reasonable how some rules are set out I guess, but why do some rules attack ones personal choices? Homosexuals, Why can't they just let them be free and be not scared to say it openly to the world that they are gay and going to get married to the same gender…? What harm will it do to YOU..? Rastafarians are somewhat restricted from practicing their religions in open society, It is in there religion to carry their holy Marijuana with them where ever they go, they get caught and thrown in jail for just practicing their religion. It seems they also target Muslims, because of the of terrorism. Not all Muslims are terrorists, and just because their names resemble many of these so called 'Muslim' terrorists have the same name… Terrorists have no religion, its just a mask they use and a reason for fight. (One of my dad's, friend's son's name was Osama, he was 16 years old when he got thrown in jail for having the same name a week after 9/11. How can the country be free if you are socially rejected because of a name…?

Many countries, if not almost all countries seem free but in one way or another they are not so close. Although each country respectfully has their rules based on majority off the majority of the religious views in the society, or some places like India, where majority is run on literal corruption, or even Africa. So I wouldn't just say US is a free country, but it definitely is somewhat safer and socially and comparably free comparing to a few others.



~NS

I could say that I feel safer here than a place where guns were banned, because if somebody wants to, say, shoot everybody they can in a store, college, or any other place, I and people around me would have no ways to defend ourselves. That guy would be carrying an illegal weapon, but what does he care, he's probably planning on killing himself anyways.

I'll give you a real example though. During the Holocaust, Jews in the the Warsaw Ghetto held off Nazis with smuggled and homemade weapons for about 2 months. If everyone had had a gun, the Nazis would have had an even harder time controlling them, and ghettos all over Germany would have been able to hold off the Nazis possibly as long or longer than Warsaw did.

The right to bear arms was put into the constitution for situations exactly like those. Our founding fathers knew that something like that could happen, so they gave us a way to defend ourselves.

EDIT: Was at wizzup; I was slow..

EDIT2: Mormonman, I'm seeing a lot of unlibertarian things in your teacher's articles, namely him being against gay marriage.

From: bullzeye95
I could say that I feel safer here than a place where guns were banned, because if somebody wants to, say, shoot everybody they can in a store, college, or any other place, I and people around me would have no ways to defend ourselves. That guy would be carrying an illegal weapon, but what does he care, he's probably planning on killing himself anyways.

I'll give you a real example though. During the Holocaust, Jews in the the Warsaw Ghetto held off Nazis with smuggled and homemade weapons for about 2 months. If everyone had had a gun, the Nazis would have had an even harder time controlling them, and ghettos all over Germany would have been able to hold off the Nazis possibly as long or longer than Warsaw did.

The right to bear arms was put into the constitution for situations exactly like those. Our founding fathers knew that something like that could happen, so they gave us a way to defend ourselves.

EDIT: Was at wizzup; I was slow..

EDIT2: Mormonman, I'm seeing a lot of unlibertarian things in your teacher's articles, namely him being against gay marriage.

If I recall correctly the USA has the highest percentage of murders per 1000 civilians.
If no one had the right to bear guns, you wouldn't need them to protect yourself.

From: bullzeye95
EDIT2: Mormonman, I'm seeing a lot of unlibertarian things in your teacher's articles, namely him being against gay marriage.

he isn't 100%… he doesn't like abortion or gays. he hate the government, and we watch libertarian videos like every other day.

If someone wants to commit a murder, they'll get a gun, illegal or not.
As for that percentage, if you could find it again, I'd like to see it.

From: bullzeye95

Unless all government power is stripped, except the essentials (court system, police, and jails), we will be enslaved to them…..

Also, gun restrictions and things like that need to be removed.

@ 1: Government power limits the court system,police, and jails powers.

@ 2: 11 year olds with guns. (yes some kids get these still. But at least restrictions filter at least 75%* of potential kids who want guns. *Not a real statistic (a personal estimate)

From: bullzeye95
If someone wants to commit a murder, they'll get a gun, illegal or not.
As for that percentage, if you could find it again, I'd like to see it.

There is a difference between having a gun, and having to go through all the problems to actually get one. Not having a gun doesn't stimulate the feeling to kill. If you already have a gun; it is much easier to just get it out, and shoot at a (random) person.

This site shows the percentage of a weapon used in murders:
http://www.statemaster.com/graph/cri_hom_vic_by_wea_gun-crime-homicide-victims-weapon-gun

Do you think it would be the same if guns were not allowed?

From: zasz
@ 1: Government power limits the court system,police, and jails powers.

@ 2: 11 year olds with guns. (yes some kids get these still. But at least restrictions filter at least 75%* of potential kids who want guns. *Not a real statistic (a personal estimate)

1. I'm talking a government takeover, like my Nazi Germany example. I doubt many people in Germany thought that something like that would/could happen.
2. I'm not saying that kids (under 18) should have guns o.O


@Wizzup, Having a gun doesn't stimulate the feeling to kill either. "…and shoot at a (random) person…" makes it sound like having a gun makes people want to shoot down random people on the street.
To answer your question though, no. I think that the murders would be in the same general area though. I think, like drugs, guns would be "cool" to teenagers, especially the gang-type ones. They'd probably get them illegally just to carry around. So those street shootings might be just as high as they were. Of course, I'm basing that on absolutely nothing, as I really don't have any experience with gang people, so that might sound completely stupid ;P
I think we have different priorities. Yours is keeping people from shooting each other via government intervention. Mine is keeping the people safe from government intervention.

From: bullzeye95

2. I'm not saying that kids (under 18) should have guns o.O

even so, just makes it so kids CAN have guns.

EDIT: NOOO Community Member!! FIX ME WIZZUP! (changed email)

From: zasz
even so, just makes it so kids CAN have guns.

Kids CAN have guns whether they're illegal or not..

Meant to apply it to my previous statement. IT would make it a lot easier for kids to get guns.

From: Wizzup?
If I recall correctly the USA has the highest percentage of murders per 1000 civilians.
If no one had the right to bear guns, you wouldn't need them to protect yourself.

Making things illegal doesn't stop criminals from obtaining or building them.

And holding a gun doesn't at all 'stimulate' some 'instinct' to kill..


IMO American public education needs serious reform.

all social programs need to be removed also. Men aren't entitled to other men's money just because they exist.
Also, gun restrictions and things like that need to be removed.

++

From: Home
Ok here we start, i think that USA is not land of the freedom and so on, i think USA is land of smart people but without their own thoughts ( of course there is some people ) but mostly they are pretty stupid.. Some questions like, What is Europa? They will answer " Eruopa, what's that ? I thought USA is the whole world.. If you get my point :)

~Home

Worst..stereotype..ever.

If I ask anyone that I know that question, they will answer that it is Europe. The media makes all Americans look retarded, as how the media makes all Japanese look crazy ("tentacle raep anyone?!")…

You should never judge a country based on how its media portrays it.

From: Harry
Worst..stereotype..ever.

If I ask anyone that I know that question, they will answer that it is Europe.

Whereas if you ask most of my friends, they would answer something like: "Europa's a moon, duh."

From: senrath
Whereas if you ask most of my friends, they would answer something like: "Europa's a moon, duh."

You hang around retards then :/

Or the New York population is smarter than yours. I do not know. I just know no one that lives near me is that stupid.


Edit: Dual facepalm, I thought you were saying that they thought Earth's moon was named that.

From: Harry
You hang around retards then :/

Or the New York population is smarter than yours. I do not know. I just know no one that lives near me is that stupid.

No, I don't. Europa is the name of Jupiter's 6th moon. My friends are a lot more interested in science than geography and politics.

From: Smartzkid
Making things illegal doesn't stop criminals from obtaining or building them.

And holding a gun doesn't at all 'stimulate' some 'instinct' to kill..

Let's say you get into a situation where you might have to fight, you know, a little squabble. What if you happen to have a gun? Would you use it?

Also, I personally don't like the way your voting system works. Voting should just go by the number of civilians who voted for a certain person. The state system that is being used now is undemocratic if you ask me.
50k vote for 1 president, 60k for another, and all the 110k votes go to one president.
Sorry but, Wtf?

I still find the elections of 2000 intriguing:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_v._Gore
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_elections_by_Electoral_College_margin#Table_of_election_results
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_in_Florida,_2000

EDIT:
I personally believe that everyone vote that is casted should be reflected in the government, therefore, there shouldn't be just one party ruling the USA, but rather use a system often used in real democratic countries. :)

True. Australia Is The Land Of The FREE


EDIT: Damn you wizzup?

From: Wizzup?
Your definition of free doesn't really equal mine…
I think the right on abortion is definitely a freedom that everyone should be granted.
So is the right to say whatever I want. I also think that everyone should have to freedom to 'use' what they want. (EG: Drugs, Food).
I think I also read somewhere that some states are against gays, or in particular gay marriage. (EG: Utah, Texas …)Yachoman sure wouldn't like this. ;)
I don't call that freedom.

EDIT: And I think guns should be banned. I wouldn't feel safe in America.

If you think abortion should be okay, then why isn't murder okay? They're the same thing. And don't tell me a baby isn't viable until it is out of the womb… When the USA constitution was written the viability of a baby was as soon as it was in the womb ;).

Also about the guns… You know that in downtown New York(or any other city, doesn't need to be that big) there will be gangs with guns. or just random robbers ect. with guns. whether or not by law they're allowed to have them. (same as drugs, people have em even though by law they shouldn't). A gun ban only takes guns from people that obey the law, if you obey the law your probably not a robber/killer. :) if you are a killer/robber you'd have a gun no matter what…
if you follow what i'm saying, "A gun ban would only effect the people using a gun in self defense."

From: footballjds
If you think abortion should be okay, then why isn't murder okay? They're the same thing. And don't tell me a baby isn't viable until it is out of the womb… When the USA constitution was written the viability of a baby was as soon as it was in the womb ;).

Also about the guns… You know that in downtown New York(or any other city, doesn't need to be that big) there will be gangs with guns. or just random robbers ect. with guns. whether or not by law they're allowed to have them. (same as drugs, people have em even though by law they shouldn't). A gun ban only takes guns from people that obey the law, if you obey the law your probably not a robber/killer. :) if you are a killer/robber you'd have a gun no matter what…
if you follow what i'm saying, "A gun ban would only effect the people using a gun in self defense."

And if you are a killer/robber you are a criminal, and you will be locked up eventually.
You are way better off without guns, but I fear the optimistic yet paranoid American civilians won't find out so soon.
Here, in the Netherlands, virtually no one has a gun. Simply because we don't need it because only the people who really want to do any harm have guns. (As you've stated, you can't stop those guys from getting guns on their hands.) We however, do not need to fear everyone on the street will and can just attack and rob us. Because they don't have a guy, you don't need one either, it's that simple.

On Abortion:
No, it's not. Abortion is not the same as murder. Perhaps in an imaginary God's eyes.
A baby isn't a baby until it has been born. Before he is born, it is up to the mother. Sure, there are certain limits. (EG: Several months after pregnancy, allowed, but not after X months.)
Don't tell me removing little sperm seed + egg is the same as killing a person.

From: Harry
Worst..stereotype..ever.

If I ask anyone that I know that question, they will answer that it is Europe. The media makes all Americans look retarded, as how the media makes all Japanese look crazy ("tentacle raep anyone?!")…

You should never judge a country based on how its media portrays it.

I'm sorry ? I'v talked with few Americans ( Who visited here ) They really didn't know that we even exist :D

So i don't know about stereotypia..


~Home

From: Wizzup?
And if you are a killer/robber you are a criminal, and you will be locked up eventually.
You are way better off without guns, but I fear the optimistic yet paranoid American civilians won't find out so soon.
Here, in the Netherlands, virtually no one has a gun. Simply because we don't need it because only the people who really want to do any harm have guns. (As you've stated, you can't stop those guys from getting guns on their hands.) We however, do not need to fear everyone on the street will and can just attack and rob us. Because they don't have a guy, you don't need one either, it's that simple.

On Abortion:
No, it's not. Abortion is not the same as murder. Perhaps in an imaginary God's eyes.
A baby isn't a baby until it has been born. Before he is born, it is up to the mother. Sure, there are certain limits. (EG: Several months after pregnancy, allowed, but not after X months.)
Don't tell me removing little sperm seed + egg is the same as killing a person.

I think you missed my point about the guns :rolleyes:
anyhow, about abortion. It is a matter of opinion when a baby is viable. ;)
I'm justing saying im USA when our constitution was written a baby was considered viable as soon as it was there. But, that idea has definitely changed :eek:….

And just for something funny[offtopicKinda..]Since everyone knows Obama is trying to ban guns. this is what one gun seller said, "Obama is the best gun salesman we could ever hope for." (AKA, Obama is going to ban guns so everyone rushes to buy them b4 he does rofl, ;). {that is just a joke to lighten the moment}[/offtopicKinda]

From: footballjds
And just for something funny[offtopicKinda..]Since everyone knows Obama is trying to ban guns. this is what one gun seller said, "Obama is the best gun salesman we could ever hope for." (AKA, Obama is going to ban guns so everyone rushes to buy them b4 he does rofl, ;). {that is just a joke to lighten the moment}[/offtopicKinda]

Pretty much shows the pathetic attitude of most civilians. They're terrified they "will no longer be able to protect themselves". Led by fear, they try to buy gun, even if the guns will be banned soon-after they've bought them. (<sarcasm>Makes sense, doesn't it?</sarcasm>)

What was your point about guns, then?

well, ill try to explain my point about guns again…
1: "Bad guys" will have guns no matter what!
2: if guns are banned then, "civilians" won't have guns
3: anyone can get robbed by someone who has a gun(AKA, somone comes into a store and whips out a gun, everyone is screwed…. Whereas if there was somone with a license to carry they'd have a chance ;) )

I don't know if I'm being clear enough

I guess its a matter of opinion, cause i suppose if the law was 100% enforced that would work. But USA seems to have a hard time enforcing things, such as there drug laws, they're not enforced…

From: footballjds
well, ill try to explain my point about guns again…
1: "Bad guys" will have guns no matter what!
2: if guns are banned then, "civilians" won't have guns
3: anyone can get robbed by someone who has a gun(AKA, somone comes into a store and whips out a gun, everyone is screwed…. Whereas if there was somone with a license to carry they'd have a chance ;) )

I don't know if I'm being clear enough

I guess its a matter of opinion, cause i suppose if the law was 100% enforced that would work. But USA seems to have a hard time enforcing things, such as there drug laws, they're not enforced…

Bad guys have guns in the UK, there arent many armed robberies.

From: Torrent of Flame
Bad guys have guns in the UK, there arent many armed robberies.

Almost all (big)robberies in USA are armed ;)

From: footballjds
Almost all (big)robberies in USA are armed ;)

Well any BIG robbery is armed. You didnt say big robbery. There are numerous store hold-ups in America, where bad guys use guns. There are few in the UK, where bad guys use guns.

Its the avaliability of guns in the USA which means people can easily rob places.

From: footballjds
well, ill try to explain my point about guns again…
1: "Bad guys" will have guns no matter what!
2: if guns are banned then, "civilians" won't have guns
3: anyone can get robbed by someone who has a gun(AKA, somone comes into a store and whips out a gun, everyone is screwed…. Whereas if there was somone with a license to carry they'd have a chance ;) )

I don't know if I'm being clear enough

The thing is, bad guys will always have guns, but this doesn't mean you need them too.
Say, you are being robbed by an armed guy, and you happen to have a gun too, would you kill him? (If you would, read a few pages back and tell me I am right about guns stimulating murders)
Most likely, you won't be able to grab your gun, and if you do, he will shoot you. (If you think he would, read a few pages back and tell me I am right about guns stimulating murders. In this case you grabbing your weapon makes him fire his gun out of self defence.)
If you don't have a gun, or simply don't draw it, you will be robbed. You report the incident to the police, and they will track the guy down. He will be imprisoned, and you will get your money back from the insurance. Even if he isn't tracked down, you will most likely get your money back.

From: footballjds

I guess its a matter of opinion, cause i suppose if the law was 100% enforced that would work. But USA seems to have a hard time enforcing things, such as there drug laws, they're not enforced…

It also works if the laws are 99,99% enforced. The Netherlands is the living example of a country functioning well without guns being legal, and have very limited homicide.

Well I am glad it works in the Netherlands!
But im not sure the law could be enforced…

How about Finland ? We are good country too… ABout those homocide things :) ( you are so smart so can you check it somewhere :) )


~Home

From: Home
How about Finland ? We are good country too… ABout those homocide things :) ( you are so smart so can you check it somewhere :) )


~Home

I'm just using the Netherlands as example because I know it's laws well. I believe most European countries to be like this.

From: Wizzup?
Also, I personally don't like the way your voting system works. Voting should just go by the number of civilians who voted for a certain person.

I agree, the winner should be the person with the most votes, not the most electoral votes. I don't know why it works how it does..

From: footballjds
If you think abortion should be okay, then why isn't murder okay? They're the same thing. And don't tell me a baby isn't viable until it is out of the womb… When the USA constitution was written the viability of a baby was as soon as it was in the womb ;).

An embryo not a living human, it's potential. Potential has no rights. Putting a potential human before a living human is much more unmoral than "killing" the embryo to benefit a living human.

who said anything about putting it b4?
how about equal. not b4
and its one thing to kill it the second to know your pregnant, rather then wait a few months…

By being anti-abortion, you are saying that an embryo should be put before a living human. If a woman wants an abortion, the government doesn't let her because they believe that the embryo shouldn't be harmed in any way, even to cause the woman to be happier. That's putting potential before living.
If they were equal in the law's eyes, the embryo would be removed, but kept alive, so as to not harm it in any way.

From: Wizzup?
Your definition of free doesn't really equal mine…
I think the right on abortion is definitely a freedom that everyone should be granted.
So is the right to say whatever I want. I also think that everyone should have to freedom to 'use' what they want. (EG: Drugs, Food).
I think I also read somewhere that some states are against gays, or in particular gay marriage. (EG: Utah, Texas …)Yachoman sure wouldn't like this. ;)
I don't call that freedom.

EDIT: And I think guns should be banned. I wouldn't feel safe in America.

My opinion as opposed to Wizzup?'s.

I think it should be illegal to kill babies.

I don't think it should be illegal to carry guns. It's against the constitution. Not only that, just because guns become "against the law", does that mean criminals will stop using them? No, it just means that the good guys (law followers) will be unarmed against the criminals.

There are higher murder rates in states/cities that ban guns. OMG! People must not be following the laws!!

More taxes = less freedom to do what we want with our money. The government is going to take more of it and spend it on things they want, such as health care.


I am a 100% fiscal conservative.

From: JAD
I don't think it should be illegal to carry guns. It's against the constitution. Not only that, just because guns become "against the law", does that mean criminals will stop using them? No, it just means that the good guys (law followers) will be unarmed against the criminals..

You will always be unarmed against criminals, even if you are armed. Different mindset, different intentions. You can't arm yourself against criminals, unless you are one yourself.

As a wise man named Chris once said..

"Make every bullet cost 50 thousand dollars. Then when a n**** gets shot four times. You be like, 'BITCH! That n**** just got two hundred thousand dollars shot in his ass.'"

Currently, the Gun Laws in the US are rediculous. Its bullshit how easy it is to get them, the latter quote was in reference to the fact that if we made every bullet worth 50k then people wouldn't shoot someone! It'd be too damn expensive.

My point.

The Right To Bear Arms, was not created for todays society…
It was made during the time of the Revolutionary war, for the Following reason: There was not 'Official' army for the colonies… The law was made so that, when the English came every one withs Arms, could grab their guns, and work together LIKE and army.

Freedom of speach…
Same thing as above. It was designed for politics, so you could speak your view. Not so you could run around calling each other N*ggers ect…

From: Wizzup?
You will always be unarmed against criminals, even if you are armed. Different mindset, different intentions. You can't arm yourself against criminals, unless you are one yourself.

Self-defense does not mean you're a criminal.

From: noidea
Freedom of speach…
Same thing as above. It was designed for politics, so you could speak your view. Not so you could run around calling each other N*ggers ect…

So you think that if someone says n*gger, they should be punished by the law?

From: bullzeye95
Self-defense does not mean you're a criminal.

So you think that if someone says n*gger, they should be punished by the law?

How do you defend yourself when you have a gun pointing at your head?
You can't defend yourself against people who have a bad intention. The only way to guard yourself from them is to have a worse intention that theirs. (EG: Point them gun at them first.)

Also, I was wondering, is there so many crime in America that you all fear you'll be robbed or murdered?

From: Wizzup?
How do you defend yourself when you have a gun pointing at your head?
You can't defend yourself against people who have a bad intention. The only way to guard yourself from them is to have a worse intention that theirs. (EG: Point them gun at them first.)

A gun won't help you when you let them get as far as pointing one at your head. I'm talking about a more real scenario, like if I heard someone breaking into my house (smashed glass, kicked in door, etc.), and I had my gun nearby, I'd get ready to shoot the next person I saw.

From: Wizzup?
Also, I was wondering, is there so many crime in America that you all fear you'll be robbed or murdered?

No. Not me, at least. I just think that everybody should have a right to self-defense, within reason (no bombs, grenades, and other stuff that poses a threat to innocent people).

From: bullzeye95
A gun won't help you when you let them get as far as pointing one at your head. I'm talking about a more real scenario, like if I heard someone breaking into my house (smashed glass, kicked in door, etc.), and I had my gun nearby, I'd get ready to shoot the next person I saw.

You watch too many movies. :)
If someone wants to break into a house, he will do it at night, when no one is at home.
He won't just go in, smash a few windows, bash himself through the door, without checking if there is anyone home. Only hopelessly lost tramps or heroin junks would do that, and even they would do that very seldom.

From: bullzeye95
No. Not me, at least. I just think that everybody should have a right to self-defence, within reason (no bombs, grenades, and other stuff that poses a threat to innocent people).

A gun is as much a threat to innocent people as grenades or bombs. (Yes, I got your point about area damage, but I don't think it matters.)
The actual fact of everyone walking around with guns is a threat to the society, not one person in particular.
What if someone in a moment of rage takes out his gun and shoots everyone around him? (EG, he would normally not do this, and it isn't planned. If it was planned he could have gotten a gun anyway, as we've stated before. )

From: Wizzup?
You watch too many movies. :)

I just figured if you used the gun-to-the-head example, I could use the break-in one :rolleyes:

From: Wizzup?
A gun is as much a threat to innocent people as grenades or bombs. (Yes, I got your point about area damage, but I don't think it matters.)
The actual fact of everyone walking around with guns is a threat to the society, not one person in particular.
What if someone in a moment of rage takes out his gun and shoots everyone around him? (EG, he would normally not do this, and it isn't planned. If it was planned he could have gotten a gun anyway, as we've stated before. )

And there's no way to stop this. But I've said, my priorities are different than yours, so I guess that is where it comes down to. Like I've said:

I think we have different priorities. Yours is keeping people from shooting each other via government intervention. Mine is keeping the people safe from government intervention.

Fir that reason, us arguing about gun control is going nowhere fast.

From: bullzeye95
I just figured if you used the gun-to-the-head example, I could use the break-in one :rolleyes:

Actually, I have used "gun pointed at head" mainly, which seems like a fair example to me. If I were to rob someone, I'd keep my gun pointed at his head at all times. Wouldn't you?

And there's no way to stop this. But I've said, my priorities are different than yours, so I guess that is where it comes down to. Like I've said:
Fir that reason, us arguing about gun control is going nowhere fast.

But don't you see that your way isn't making the world or people more safe, but instead makes the world more dangerous? (As adding weapons generally tends to do…)
You don't take out the dangers, you add more.

Just wondering do the people who are pro guns support having nuclear weapons in the world? It's a similar situation: "we need nukes in case someone nukes us we can get them back". Like people having guns in case someone else has one, the situation quickly escalates and people can die. Hence why there are heaps of treaties and programs to destroy the amount of nukes in the world.

It's like carrying a knife. I live in a bad area so use to take a knife with me when I went out Friday and Saturday nights so if I got mugged on the way home I could protect myself. But then I realized if I pulled out a knife I'd have to stab someone or risk getting stabbed by their knife. Rather than getting held up for my phone and then walking away, it would escalate into a situation where one of us will end up on the ground bleeding. Just like with guns.

Land of the free because you are more free. "Like people having guns in case someone else has one, the situation quickly escalates and people can die." Yes, freedom can be a bad thing, but something like this means the people have the freedom to choose to own a weapon or not, choose to follow suit or not or even choose to be free or not. This unlimited number of choices is what I think freedom really is.

From: The Claw
Just wondering do the people who are pro guns support having nuclear weapons in the world? It's a similar situation: "we need nukes in case someone nukes us we can get them back". Like people having guns in case someone else has one, the situation quickly escalates and people can die. Hence why there are heaps of treaties and programs to destroy the amount of nukes in the world.

It's like carrying a knife. I live in a bad area so use to take a knife with me when I went out Friday and Saturday nights so if I got mugged on the way home I could protect myself. But then I realized if I pulled out a knife I'd have to stab someone or risk getting stabbed by their knife. Rather than getting held up for my phone and then walking away, it would escalate into a situation where one of us will end up on the ground bleeding. Just like with guns.

Yup. If you carry a knife you are more likely to get stabbed because you are seen as a threat. If you carry a gun, you are more likely to get shot if a situation arises because you are seen as a threat.

The gun laws are lapse, bullzeye, and you know it. And lets be honest, could you really shoot someone? I mean, even if you only shoot to wound, what happens if it becomes fatal? Could you live with the death of that guy on your hands, for the sake of a DvD player or a TV? I know I couldnt.

I don't understand gun control at all, or how it would make the world any "less dangerous". Guns are dangerous when they are put into the wrong hands. Guns don't kill people; people kill people. If there are laws banning the use of guns, do you think that the bad guys will not be able to get a gun just because it's "against the law"? No, because that's what bad guys do: break the law.

It is fact that the cities with gun control have higher murder rates. This is because the bad guys get guns no matter what. Now let me ask you this: If you were a mugger/robber/whatever, would you be more scared to break into someone's house/mug them if you didn't know if they were armed? I know I would be…

You can use the same example with the police. Police are hardly allowed to use their guns at all now with all the laws/law suites. Would you be more inclined to run away from the police if you knew that they couldn't shoot you, or if you knew that you would have a bullet in your leg if you decided to run. Would you be more inclined to mug someone if you knew that there was a chance of getting the death penalty?

There needs to be consequences for doing bad things, and that may create a little fear, which is a good thing. You should be scared to mug someone/break into their house, not sure if you are going to get shot/get a death penalty. You should be scared to run from the cops, not knowing if they will shoot you. Now, it's a win win situation for poor people or criminals for doing illegal activity. If they steal something and get away with it, then that's a good thing for them. If they go to jail, then they have us paying $100,000 per year per person to house them and give them food. Prison isn't even a bad place anymore… So there are no consequences.

Anyways, the bad guys will always find a way to obtain guns… Why unarm the good guys?

From: Torrent of Flame
The gun laws are lapse, bullzeye, and you know it. And lets be honest, could you really shoot someone? I mean, even if you only shoot to wound, what happens if it becomes fatal? Could you live with the death of that guy on your hands, for the sake of a DvD player or a TV? I know I couldnt.

Yes, a person who steals doesn't deserve to live. They would mean nothing to me, and would be harming me. I see no problem with killing them.

From: bullzeye95
Yes, a person who steals doesn't deserve to live. They would mean nothing to me, and would be harming me. I see no problem with killing them.

Well your a cold-hearted bastard, then.

From: bullzeye95
Yes, a person who steals doesn't deserve to live. They would mean nothing to me, and would be harming me. I see no problem with killing them.

I see every problem with killing people. Perhaps once you realise what killing actually is, you might change your mind. Sit down for some hours, listen to some Wagner (you have to get in the right mood), and think about it.

The only ones who *perhaps* deserve to die are the ones who torture or kill other people.

Also, a petty gun is not going to protect you is someone is really after you in particular, and wants to give his life killing you. You can't fight such strong hate. (Off-Topic, partially.)

This gun control matter can easily be solved with statistics:
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-guncontrol.htm
That is in the USA. We could also compare Europe to the US, and you'll see the same correlation.
Basically, the less guns the less murders. It's proven countless of times before. Nothing's wrong with that, is it?
Bullzeye: you say you have no problem in killing a robber. So you say that if someone robs you (because he's really desperate or something, you can't know), in which nothing is harmed (except you lose like $200 max), you are allowed to take his life? (which is priceless + you would get sent to jail for some time) You should think about what killing actually is.

i can see a lot of similarities between attitudes towards the bible, and attitudes towards the US constitution.

With both of them, there are many people who accept what they say unquestioningly.

Theres some people who almost worship the US constitution, and if the constitution say something, then you must obey it without even thinking rationally about it.


Now the US constitution isnt as old as the bible, but you could still argue that its slowly outliving its relevance.
But then again, the US constitution can be changed by some courts or other democratic process, so one would hope that it would keep up with the times.

From: Wizzup?
I see every problem with killing people. Perhaps once you realise what killing actually is, you might change your mind. Sit down for some hours, listen to some Wagner (you have to get in the right mood), and think about it.

I see a huge problem with killing people too, but not in self-defense or defense of property. In a real situation, I may not actually kill the person (only because I would be scared of the law), but I would shoot enough to immobilize them if I could.
I understand what killing is. I hold every person's life at a different value. Some people don't deserve to live IMO, including thieves.

From: bullzeye95
I see a huge problem with killing people too, but not in self-defense or defense of property. In a real situation, I may not actually kill the person (only because I would be scared of the law), but I would shoot enough to immobilize them if I could.
I understand what killing is. I hold every person's life at a different value. Some people don't deserve to live IMO, including thieves.

So if a poor family has like 3 kids who need them and their dad is forced to go steel some food so they don't die. You think he should be killed because of it?

From: NiCbaZ
So if a poor family has like 3 kids who need them and their dad is forced to go steel some food so they don't die. You think he should be killed because of it?

If he is going to steal my food so me and my family can't eat and we die, then he shouldn't necessarily be killed, but stopped and punished. And anyways, the government steals the money for the poor families now. If they just hop on welfare, they can get the pre-stolen money.



Nobody will respond to any of the points made in my above posts…

From: NiCbaZ
So if a poor family has like 3 kids who need them and their dad is forced to go steel some food so they don't die. You think he should be killed because of it?

Yes. He could work at McDonalds if he's that desperate.
And JAD also mentioned, welfare (stealing people who contribute to society and giving to those who don't) would feed them well enough.

Guns aren't only legal to protect you against robbers. They are also there to protect you against the tyranny of the government as well.

I don't own a gun, but that's one of the most important reasons for holding a gun in the first place, according to America's founding fathers.

If only the government has guns, then they can do anything they want. The second amendment makes it so that there must be mutual respect between the government and the people.

Just think about how it has affected traffic stops. Cops are much more careful and observant when they approach a vehicle because it's one of the most dangerous parts of their job. They have to act as if there may be a weapon in any car they are approaching. They have to respect that possibility.

Anti-gun people often argue that a gun is more dangerous to your own family/kids than to any robber. Although that may be true, I haven't ever heard someone argue that someone else outside your family lawfully owning a gun is a threat to anyone else walking down the street or in your neighborhood. So, if your dad owns a gun I guess you could tell him you want him to get rid of it for your own safety, but I don't think it's fair to tell someone else that their guns somehow endanger you when the statistics don't bear that out.

And I support nukes as long as we're the only ones that have them. :) That's essentially the entire rationale behind all US foreign policy. We're on top, and we're going to stay there, and nobody else can be trusted. It may sound cynical, but we have a 40+ year track record of restraint with nuclear weapons that many others (Iran, North Korea) don't.

From: tarajunky
Guns aren't only legal to protect you against robbers. They are also there to protect you against the tyranny of the government as well.

I don't own a gun, but that's one of the most important reasons for holding a gun in the first place, according to America's founding fathers.

If only the government has guns, then they can do anything they want. The second amendment makes it so that there must be mutual respect between the government and the people.

The politicians (mainly liberals) don't want us to have guns though because they want the power to do whatever they want. They don't want us to have power…

I love reading your posts in political discussions on these forums tarajunky. You have a lot of views that I 100% agree with.

From: tarajunky
Guns aren't only legal to protect you against robbers. They are also there to protect you against the tyranny of the government as well.

I don't own a gun, but that's one of the most important reasons for holding a gun in the first place, according to America's founding fathers.

If only the government has guns, then they can do anything they want. The second amendment makes it so that there must be mutual respect between the government and the people.

Just think about how it has affected traffic stops. Cops are much more careful and observant when they approach a vehicle because it's one of the most dangerous parts of their job. They have to act as if there may be a weapon in any car they are approaching. They have to respect that possibility.

Anti-gun people often argue that a gun is more dangerous to your own family/kids than to any robber. Although that may be true, I haven't ever heard someone argue that someone else outside your family lawfully owning a gun is a threat to anyone else walking down the street or in your neighborhood. So, if your dad owns a gun I guess you could tell him you want him to get rid of it for your own safety, but I don't think it's fair to tell someone else that their guns somehow endanger you when the statistics don't bear that out.

And I support nukes as long as we're the only ones that have them. :) That's essentially the entire rationale behind all US foreign policy. We're on top, and we're going to stay there, and nobody else can be trusted. It may sound cynical, but we have a 40+ year track record of restraint with nuclear weapons that many others (Iran, North Korea) don't.

From: JAD
The politicians (mainly liberals) don't want us to have guns though because they want the power to do whatever they want. They don't want us to have power…

I love reading your posts in political discussions on these forums tarajunky. You have a lot of views that I 100% agree with.

LOL, which is which?

From: bullzeye95
By being anti-abortion, you are saying that an embryo should be put before a living human. If a woman wants an abortion, the government doesn't let her because they believe that the embryo shouldn't be harmed in any way, even to cause the woman to be happier. That's putting potential before living.

No. That's putting a feeling (happiness) above a life.

From: Smartzkid
No. That's putting a feeling (happiness) above a life.

I don't classify something unborn as important as something born, thinking, and feeling.

vid about stupid americans
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJuNgBkloFE

From: pur3b100d
vid about stupid americans
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJuNgBkloFE

You could do that anywhere in the world..
Also, it sounds really edited. Like the part where they asked how many sides there are on a triangle, and the girl responds "There's no sides… one?" It sounds like they really asked her how many sides there are on a circle.

From: Smartzkid
No. That's putting a feeling (happiness) above a life.

You eat meat, don't you?

The debate really boils down to what people consider a life. Personally, I think a young embryo (~3 months and below) is just as much living as a sperm, and I consider it the right of the (potential) mother to decide based what she wants to do.

Take the time to think through what a life is, don't just spout what your religious leaders tell you to.

(Edit, 600th post :p)

… :google::f::bart: :norris: :eek: :confused: :( :D

…

…
h

…l

[admin]
Message from Staff:
You have been infracted and temporarily banned from this site. Please read the rules and refrain from spamming in the future. Please refer to the private message sent to your private message inbox for more details.

Regards,

ZephyrsFury,
SRL Developer / Moderator.
[/admin]